Right there with you, sistersister. If abortion is outlawed, then everyone should be required by law to give blood, donate a kidney or bone marrow to any compatible person in need, and ensure that all organs are available for transplant after death.

I sure hope that all the anti-choicers, oops, sorry "pro-lifers" carry organ donor cards, at least. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

If abortion is outlawed, any woman not wanting children should be allowed elective sterilization.

Men should also be forced to be serilized, therefore we no longer have pregnancy scares and can just enjoy sex!

If abortion is outlawed, sterilization and all forms of birthcontrol should be paid by the government.

I would also say that if the government decides it has a vested interest in forced continued gestation than it should have the responsibility of paying the woman during the duration of her pregnancy (at the very least minimum wage times 24/7 times nine months).

And in the case of forcing parrents to bring to term a damaged fetus the government should take the responsibility for paying all cost associated with that child and its care.


When the government takes the responsibility for the choice of bringing a pregnancy to term away from the woman who is pregnant, then it should take responsibility for all the consequences resulting from the forced birth. The woman who has had her choice coopted should not have to pay for the results of a choice forced on her against her will.

Bravo! If and when the puts their money where their mouths are then and only then will I begin to seriously consider their position.

Anti-choicers don't really believe in a right to life. If they did, they would be all for universal healthcare as well as being against all wars.

And they certianly wouldn't be the ones to start verbal wars by protesting their "beliefs", making false illusions of fetuses by showing the public stillborns. I mean, think about it. What if one of those stillborn fetuses being paraded around as "abortions" was a VERY VERY wanted life? I find it disgusting what some prolifers will do to promote their cause. Think of how much grief you would feel if you knew that someone was parading around your VERY much wanted, stillborn fetus and claiming YOU aborted it.

Hmmm.I'm against war and I'm for universal healthcare. I'm also against the death penalty.

You think ALL pro-lifers should have the same beliefs?

Then ALL pro-choicers should also be for universal healthcare, be against war AND the death penalty. At least when women are concerned. If you're pro-choice, you wouldn't want anyone's reproductive choices taken away, and if they die, well, there goes their ability to have choices.

And YES, I have met many pro-choicers who do support the war and the death penalty.

That doesn't actually follow. The thing is with being pro LIFE, what aochriss means, is that those who hold this belief need to be in favour of preserving ALL life, if they are going to be consistent. That means they should not just be agitating to stop abortions, but agitating just as much against the fact that people die because they can't afford medical treatment. They should be agitating just as much against wars. Otherwise, if they only agitate and make noise and complain about abortion, it seems they are really pro-FETUS, not pro-LIFE.

On the other hand, what is required to be consistent in pro-CHOICE? It is possible to be pro-choice and libertarian, i.e. not wanting any interference by the state in one's life. So you can theoretically be against state-provided universal health care, or universal health care based on compulsory private insurance, for essentially libertarian reasons. You could also see it the other way, of course, that individuals should have the choice of what health care they want, and that if they can't afford it they don't have the choice, ergo the state should provide universal availability of health care. As for being pro- or anti-death penalty -- I am against the imposition of a death penalty, because state -sanctioned execution is barbaric. On the other hand, I am in favour of leaving the choice up to the convicted criminal. They can have the choice between a life sentence of hard labour, or they may choose lethal injection if they would rather not spend the next 40 years breaking rocks.

Don't support war but understand why its done, as for the death penalty if they have 100% solid proof I would be for it, since tax payers, pay for their food, rooming, tv and the other misc items.

I support the death penalty in cases where the evidence (hard core forensic type) is clear. I do not support the way this country hands down death sentences based on wealth (or more to the point the lack of wealth) race and gender.

I do not believe that any woman ever deserves the death penalty for the act of having had sex and becoming pregnant.

War may be necesary at times but should be an act of last resort. I do not support war tht is primarily of political motivation (especioally one in which the primary motivation seemed to be a lackluster son trying to prove he could out do his daddy). I also believe that every means possible should be taken to prevent any civilians from being killed or maimed or made homeless. I also oppose claiming noncombatants are terrorists after they have been caught in the crossfire (especially those under the age of ten).

To get back to the original point, No I do not think all Anti-choicers are alike except in the fact that they all would make the woman secondary to her zef. Also they are all more than willing to reduce all women of reproductive years to incubator first and humans second. Also that a good many antichoicers seem to agree that their beliefs about women they do not know and their prejudgement of those women and their motivations are more important than the woman herself.

I once listened to a young catholic priest wax poetic about the beauty of a woman dying in childbirth. To me that sumed up the complete disconnect of many on the anti choice side from the very real lives and existance of the women they so condem.

I have heard that too and I know to many woman who think its a grande idea to sacrifice their lives for the life of a newborn, its somehow noble, who cares about my life, its meaningless.

It is illegal to commit suicide, I think thats the equivalent of commiting suicide because you had a choice to live or die and you didn't care.

I think it is selfish but then again thats my perspective.

I don't think dying for your unborn child to live should be considered selfish. It's like people who throw themselves in front a bullet intended for someone else. They sacrifice themselves to save the other person. It is sort of like suicide, but I don't see how it's selfish to die for another human, born or unborn. I am NOT saying that I expect anyone to have to die for anyone, however.

I could NEVER imagine a woman dying in childbirth pictured as BEAUTIFUL. Yeah, some sacrifice. That poor baby, left without a mother. Yeah, because it is ALIVE and BORN. That is a very sick and perverse way of thinking. I would never, ever risk MY life to give birth, if I knew it would kill me. I think about my 6 year old son and 3 year old daughter. Them growing up motherless because I made a decision to just have the baby even though it would kill me. Yeah, it is noble. No denying that. But it is NOT worth it. My children don't deserve that kind of pain. Nor does my husband. And if he knew having a baby could kill me, you bet he would be right there with me at the abortion clinic. My life is very valuable to me and my family.

Its still not right, its a life for a life and it doesn't make anything better, instead it make someone live with regrets or completely the opposite, there is no gurantee. A kid could grow and be depressed because he could feel that he/she killed his mom or he could make something of himself, still no guarantee.

Life is like a lottery ticket, but if you knew you held money in one hand would you take the lottery ticket or the money, its a chance I wouldn't be willing to take.

I think what really creeped me out about this priest is the fact that he could get all gushy about something he can not or ever will be more than a spectator to.

The fact is that he will never be pregnant nor will he ever have to decide to put his life or health at risk for a zef. In fact as a priest he will not even have to have this put upon his wife or zef.

I am prochoice so I do actually think it should be up to the woman. How ever becuase I think existing life superseeds potential life I would not be on her cheer squad.

I also think the point of her making this decision when she may already have existing children is selfish. Her first responsibility should be to be here to raise and care for the offspring she has already produced.

Do you believe it would be selfish for a mother to risk her life for one of her born children for whatever reason? Or should she just let that born child die so she can be there to take care of her other children? When is it selfish to sacrifice your life so your own flesh and blood lives? When that child happens to still be in the womb?

I think that in the case where her death is going to be the outcome and the life of the child is not a sure thing (the most related case to a pregnant woman risking her life for her zef) then her responsibility should be to her other children. Especially if there are more than one involved.

If a building is on fire and a woman and two of her kids have escaped the fire fighters do not let her rush in to try to save one child that is trapped and unaccesable.

But again if she wants to throw her responsibilities to her living children away it is her life and her choice and I would support it I just would not be a big fan or think her very heroic compared to the woman that weighed all consequences and made a hard decision based on her responsibility to the children she has.

Would you support the decision of a mother to kill herself becuase she thought it might save her adult childs life (perhaps he is unable to pay for her care and raise his own children with out becoming depressed and suicidal).

The zef is nonfunctional with out its attachment to the womans body. Her life is of more importance than the zefs. It is a waste to throw something away and that is what she would be doing. It is selfish to leave behind other children who depend on her along with the rest of her family. If you had to save two things from a burning building a woman or a petri dish with a fertilized egg ( you cannot reach both in time) would you think the person that chose the petri dish was a hero?

What about the father Nu?


What if we started looking at more woman as men or drop the whole mothering thing altogether and looked at it as parenting? I'm not trying to be stingent but why is a responsibility of child-rearing or self sacrifice, always placed on a woman?

~~~~Btw not dissing any guys, if you are doing on your own KUDOS~

Someone STILL dies. If the mother would let her unborn child die, how do you think she would feel about it (especially if it's a late-term pregnancy)? Either way, someone will be affected. A death will still occur and to YOU or someone else, the fetus might not be important, but it is obviously important to the mother.If dying for your unborn child for it to have a chance to be born is selfish, then letting your unborn child die so you can live would be selfish, too. It would have to go both ways. I don't see either way as being selfish, though. Letting your unborn die because you're in danger is considered an instinct to survive.