So let's try to kill your right now as an adult. You will do whatever you can to remain alive! And all your human instincts for survival will get activated. In the same fashion it is absurd to think babies don't want to be alive. This is a very poor argument.

Embryos don't do anything when threatened with pain and death if that is the answer you are looking for. You are well aware of this. They are totally defendless. You can kill them just fine if that's what you want and they won't notice. You see aochriss when it comes to abortion you talk about human values. I believe the human life is valuable in every level whether it's embryo whether it is a child it doesn't matter. I can't imagine what would be living thinking the life of the unborn could be shattered as if they are just objects. And I'm not saying this to you to try to change your mind in any way. I just can tell you that I like to live with human values and I commend those brave women who get pregnant accidentally and decide to have their babies. I truly admire them.

You're missing the point. Phlem flat-out said that unborn babies would choose to be alive over abortion. Unborn babies are not capable of choice. They have no concept of "being alive" nor do they know what abortion is. They can not consider the two options and then choose one - they are not mentally capable of such a feat. They react purely on instinct, not on concious choice.

I don't think unborn babies even know what being alive is, which is why I don't think they want to be alive. They don't want to NOT be alive either - I'm not saying that - but that they don't know "being alive" from "not being alive". They would react in a self-defensive manner simply because their instincts told them to, not because they had a concious thought that their life was in jeopardy. A born individual (such as myself), while still acting on a survival instinct, would be able to appreciate my situation and would be actively fighting to live rather than blindly following instincts. Can you see the difference?

with all the billions of people that exist and have existed not even one baby has ever committed suicide which is what choosing abortion would be. so it is fairly obvious that babies always choose life.

No one is talking about babies in an abortion debate. Would an embryo choose to live? What about an egg or sperm?

Babies are alive because they're alive. They do not choose to remain so. They do not choose suicide because they don't know what suicide is. They don't know what "being alive" is, either. Babies are not capable of choosing between complex ideas such as "life" and "death". They... are... BABIES. Their little brains are not developed enough to comprehend the things you're claiming they're capable of.

If a newborn dies from SIDS (crib death), do you think they chose to die? If not, why do you assume that because they didn't die from SIDS last night that they chose to remain alive?

what does a baby dying from natural causes have to do with you intentional killing a baby with an abortion?are you telling us that you also kill newborn babies and than say they died of sids?

Actually, in a way, billions of embryos have chosen to die -- that is what a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is. Self-destruct. Kaplooie.

You're obviously a very simple individual and are having trouble making comparisons, so I'll try to spell it out for you. You said that no baby has ever commited suicide, so they MUST be choosing life. I was asking you that if simply being alive means they are choosing life, then are the ones that are not alive choosing death? If they die of natural causes and are not choosing death, then the live ones are alive because of natural causes and are not choosing life. It goes back to how the unborn and newly born are not capable of choice - something you've insisted they are capable of doing.

And I've neither had an abortion nor have I killed a born baby. I'm currently incubating an unborn child, as a matter of fact.

To be, and CHOOSING to be, are two entirely different things. Unborn and newborns are not capable of choice.

I wonder why people bring their pets to the vets if really dogs and cats are not self aware that they are living and have no choice of saying if they want to be alive or dead. Is it okay to feel compassion for animals which do not have a capability of choice but not okay to feel compassion for the unborn/newborn who likewise does not have a capability of choice?

Who said there's anything wrong with feeling compassion for the unborn or newborn? I adore my unborn daughter. All I said was that they don't have the capacity for choice, and that simply BEING alive does not always translate to CHOOSING to be alive - especially when it concerns living things that do not have the mental capacity for choice.

I have counselled a lot of pet owners, who aren't sure about when it is right to make the final decision for their pet. I say - You will know. It won't be a decision anymore -- your cat or dog will tell you exactly when it's their time to go. So yes -- I think animals are capable of choosing to live or choosing to die.

That is really, really ridiculously funny.

How do you know what morally right and wrong is?
How do you know what is legally right and wrong?

A concsious I presume?

A person has a right to live life the wya they choose, it is their life and their beliefs. Telling that person that a potential has more value than her x amount years she/he lives, is disgusting.

What is more important
Quality of life or Quantity?

look, unless you've actually been a victim of this situation you have no ground here to even understand what is the right choice to make and therefore you have no right to tell someone else what they can or cannot do under these circumstances. A fetus isn't even mentally aware of what has happened or what is going on but the mother is. Now there are many mothers who were raped and regretted getting an abortion but there are just as many that say it was the right choice for them. In either case, how could you possibly think you have the right to tell someone what they have to do in this situation? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, it's not your decision to make.

No one is talking about people. This is an abortion debate. Since when is a wad of cells aware of anything?

how can you fight for a woman's choice to whatever she wants with her body, without fighting for a man's choice to do whatever he wants with his body and not be a bunch of hypocrites. if a man walks into a doctors office and asks for a prescription for a big bottle of morphine because it is his body and his choice the doctor laughs in his face and tosses him out on his ear. but a woman walks into a doctors office and asks the doctor to kill her baby with an abortion next thing you know the woman is no longer pregnant and the doctor has a dead baby in his trash can. if a man goes to court for possesion of a big bottle of morphine you can bet the constitution of the united states of america that every woman on that jury will convict him and send him to prison and don't give a rats behind about a person's choice to do whatever they want with their body.

Why are you always so disingenuous?

No one, male or female, is allowed to commit suicide. However, if a man has a parasite in his body he is allowed to have it removed. Why shouldn't a woman have that SAME right?