no offense, but truthfully, I think thats kind of an unfair statement. To me it made it sound as if the man doesnt do anything at all except do his thing anf than go watch football for the next nine months and maybe speak to the woman for a min., when she says, hey im going into labor. It probably didnt mean to come of that way, but there are alot of man out there who do ALOT of work with helping their wives through a pregnancy. Yes, a woman does go through the 9 month term and does all the work during labor. but a woman wouldnt be in the position of getting pregnant in the first place if it wasnt for that sperm. I guess ofr the equal say thing, wouldnt you want it to be equal if it were the other way around if man had babies and women didnt? Also if we wanted to talk bio, majority of a childs traits/characteristics and etc come from the father. Alright im gonna stop, before I get on one my feminist wanting to be equal yet, things.

By the way Damasa, im zipping my lip just for you :D

WTF? A child gets the same number of chromosomes from each parent.

And no, I didn't mean it to come out the way you said, and yes if it was the other way around I'd WANT it to be equal but you know what? That's pretty much impossible because of the biology. As much as a man may help out, he's not going to have to have the health risks of pregnancy and birth and whatnot. The decisionmaking as to what will happen to a pregnancy will always be at least 51%-49% in the woman's favor because of simple biology. Like it or not, you can't change that fact.

Okay, I'm going to try to avoid this thread entirely from now on...this is the one issue that can make me see red like no other. It's what I'm most passionate about and honestly if I were to devote my life to a cause it would be the pro-choice one. So. To save myself further stress and lashing out and people and saying things I don't mean, I'm leaving. No one's mind will be changed, anyway.

ok, um...i am a little disheartened that no one here is pro-life...i understand the fact you don't want the government telling you what to do b/c i don't want anyone telling me what to do, either...but at the same time, i feel the government does have a responsibility to protect us...and why doesn't that include the innocent (!) lives of the unborn. i don't understand why people are always so ready to get rid of a part of themselves...if you were mature enough to do the deed, you are mature enough to carry the seed.

again as said many times above, this would be ideal but I know many people that did the deed and are in noway responsible-that is reality. Do you really want them raising a child? I woudn't.

Please do not tell me that you think abortion is the only option for people who do not wish to keep their child...there are millions of people out there who WANT children and are unable to have them. These "irresponsible" individuals can put their child up for adoption, and in a lot of cases can even have their medical bills paid for if need be. All I'm saying is that the very least a pregnant couple can do if they do not want to keep it is to carry it to term, grant it life, and give it to someone who wants to raise it.

You raise a valid point, but a friend of mine is a social worker who told me that *most* couples who are trying to adopt a child are very specific that they want an infant who is the same race they are and whose mother sought pre-natal care and leads a healthy, drug-free lifestyle. It is THOSE babies that people are jumping through hoops to adopt (not always of course, but this seems to be the norm). What about the children who don't fit this criteria? I am NOT saying that because these children are not easily adoptable that they are expendable or that they should be aborted (I do not personally endorse abortion), but I am just tired of hearing this same adoption argument over and over because there ARE plenty of babies and children out there who need good homes. They're just not the "chosen ones".

Right...and there ARE people out there wanting to give them those good homes. If no one adopts the crack addicted baby, does that mean the child was better off being aborted? What does "chosen ones" mean, anyway? I know a man who was never adopted, raised in an orphanage and he has lead a good, solid life...you can't rate someone's quality of life until they are given the opportunity to live. In other words, you can't say that just because someone was born into bad circumstances, that their whole life, things will be bad for them.

All I'm saying is...no one has the right to take the innocent life of another...not even its mother.

Right...and there ARE people out there wanting to give them those good homes.

Yes, I am aware of this. There is a couple in my church who adopted a now 4 year-old crack addicted baby and I have the utmost respect for them. This is not the norm, though.


If no one adopts the crack addicted baby, does that mean the child was better off being aborted?

No, I mentioned earlier that I am pro-life


What does "chosen ones" mean, anyway?

In the context of my last post, "chosen ones" refers to the babies that are not the ones people are flocking to adopt. See my previous post for criteria.


I know a man who was never adopted, raised in an orphanage and he has lead a good, solid life...you can't rate someone's quality of life until they are given the opportunity to live. In other words, you can't say that just because someone was born into bad circumstances, that their whole life, things will be bad for them.

This is true, but I never said otherwise. I was clarifying your statement that millions of people out there want to adopt children. That makes it sound like every, single child who is born will immediately be swooped up by a loving family and, sadly, that is not the case.

All I'm saying is...no one has the right to take the innocent life of another...not even its mother.

I agree with you on that point. But that is not all you're saying. You implied that every child that is conceived will end up being adopted if he/she is put up for placement. I wanted to set the record straight on that. I sincerely wish that were the case, but it isn't.

AlphaGamDiva, if you were counseling a pregnant, drug addicted woman, could you in good conscience tell her that if she has the child "millions of people" will be standing in line to adopt it? I know I couldn't. If you believe that women shouldn't have abortions, that's fine. But please don't base that argument on the premise that "millions of people" want to adopt. It is misleading.

For every one of those stories, there are hundreds that go the other way.

Have you ever experienced state run childcare? our foster care system in and of itself is atrocious... the system in Washington DC, our nation's CAPITOL, for crying out loud, is so dysfunctional that over a hundred children have died as a result of the failure of DC Social Services to properly keep uip on their cases. (I am 90% sure of this, but visit www.washingtonpost.com and do a search and it will bring up all the recent articles. There's one just about every week). Is it "morally responsible" to bring these children into the world, subject them to lives of abuse and poverty, only to have them be let down the the system that fought for their existence in the first place? What bright spots have these poor children had in their short lives?


DukeBlue- I am so grateful to you for articulating my thoughts on this issue exactly. You are a credit to my gender :)

All through our lives we are instructed on the message of self control: Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD. This can be applied to all sides of the coin- to premarital sex as well as abortion and having a child.


One one hand, we can say that if you take the responsibility of sex, you accept all consequences that may go along with it. We all know that a good percentage of people engaging in intercourse- especially young people- are not well informed about the consequences that sex carries. I come from a mostly white upper class hometown, and I cannot count the number of people who had misinformation about sex. Sexual activity is a flood that will not easliy be dammed. When we ignore it, and preach abstinence instead of education (providing condoms and an open environment in which to facilitate conversationa nd question and answer), it's like saying "it will not get dark tonight." People are going to have premarital sex. Teenagers are going to get pregnant. And they will get abortions. Which is better- providing them with a safe, sanitary environment in which to have it sone, or leaving them to their own devices? Coat hangers? Back-alley butchers? How is that socially responsible?

Likewise, I believe that just because a woman is physically capable of having a child doesn't mean that she should. I like the analogy of donating one's body. If we are truly to argue that men and women should be equal in this respect, then what happens to the myriad of men who walk away from this responsibility? And let's be honest here... of the men that I've slept with, there are definitely some I would absolutely not consider as fathers of my children. To retain them as parents, to maintain that ever-constant connection through a child--- why? Am I to choose my sexual partners on the basis of "If I were to get pregnant, would he be a good father?" I don't understand that. My sexual life WILL NOT be dictated by the fact that I have a uterus and there is the possibility I could get pregnant. I am a separate person from my future children. They don't run my life (yet) :)).

Finally, I am pro-choice, but that does not mean pro-abortion. I am not sure that I could go through with having an abortion should I ever face that decision. Being pro-choice does not mean that you are in favor of across-the-board abortions. Just because you favor the choice doesn't mean you favor the act. You favor just that- the choice. Making abortions legal doesn't mean the YOU have to get one. It doesn't make a pro-life opinion null and void. You may still have your opinion and exercise it over your decisions. Pro-choice just means that other people have the right to exercise their own.

:: steps off soapbox::
::looks around at all the other soapboxes... there are lots::

phew. sorry. just had to get that off my chest.


wait, one more thing-

there have been several comments about women being raped and where abortion stands relevant to that. There was one comment saying something to the effect of "if a woman isn't responsible to get a medical exam, then she should have the baby." I literally have to clench my jaw about this. Rape is a horrifyingly traumatic thing. And it is not always a dark-alley, empty parking lot, stranger-in-a-hooded mask event. Most rapes occur at the hands of someone the victim knows. If there was an ambiguous night where there was too much alcohol (and I know we've ALL been there) and your friend crossed the line, are you so quick to cry rape and rush to the hospital? What if a woman was drugged and doesn't remember the event until days later(raises hand here)? Is it still her "irresponsibility" at fault? Or what about incest? When a girl is raped by her father/uncle/brother and is too intimidated to report it, is that irresponsible? THERE ARE TOO MANY VARIABLES WITH RAPE TO CATEGORIZE IT. It is NEVER the vicitms fault. Don't begin to assume that you understand the emotional rollercoaster that follows such an act, and have the right to dictate a time frame for a woman to take appropriate action.

:::really steps off soapbox:::

AlphGamDiva,

I admire you for your tenacity and would really like to hear some information about adoption. I know many people say all these children will be adopted-will they really? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is and go adopt a child now? I know there are plenty out there RT AT THIS MOMENT that need a home-can you do this? People are so quick to say these things but then don't research the facts or help out by adopting. I wish that every child was adopted, how I wish this, but it does not happen.


Can anyone that thinks adoption is the answer give us some statistics I would really like to know.

JAM,

Sorry that it took me a while to respond to your post. I wasn't near a computer during the holidays. :)

If you were put off by my response to your post, then I sincerely apologize. You posed two serious, thought-provoking questions in that post, and that's why I responded to them. I didn't realize that you intended the questions to be rhetorical.

You're right about my arguing the points that you made. I was, like you, offering my side of the issue and I felt like it would be easier to convey my ideas if I took your points one by one and commented on each of them individually.

Once again, I wasn't trying to be insulting. I was only countering your comments with questions that I found to be valid, just as you did in your post. I did not mean to offend you. I think you are a wonderful contribution to GC and I respect your thoughts although I may not always agree with them. :)

ok, i never meant to imply that all children put up for adoption will be taken home...i want to apologize early on if i have offended anyone b/c i only meant to express my opinion...i just now feel that my thoughts and ideals have been attacked b/c i had no footnotes to justify my belief that adoption is the better alternative.
i just think that because a woman does not want to keep her child, it does not mean she has to kill it, either. when a woman becomes pregnant, she has 3 options: to keep, to give up, or to abort. i do not understand why so many people decide upon the latter...there are millions of people out there wanting to adopt children. again, the exact number and statistics, i am sorry, but do not have. but i do know that there are people who are on waiting lists...and one can only assume that a waiting list implies that there is a demand for something there is not enough of. and yes, most of the people wanting to adopt a child want a neat and tidy white baby...and those are definitely in short supply. but that does not mean that the other children are any less significant, or wanted...or that anyone has the right to pre-determine whether the lives of the other children will be so horrible that we should take it upon ourselves to "save" them. AlphaChiS2K, i don't think it is any more "morally responsible" to take a life before it has a chance to live it. i was mentioning adoption as an alternative to abortion, that was all. i do not mean to seem as if i know all the numbers of foster care deaths and orphans in the world...but i do know that to let the person determine his/her own fate is better than someone killing him/her early JUST IN CASE.
i wish that the norm was for all pregnancies to be wanted ones, and for every child left without parents that there were parents to take it in...but there's not. reality is a harsh and cold place. i consider abortion to be murder, and i guess that is where pro-choicers and i clash...so in seeing it as murder, i don't think we should have it legalized. just like you don't want ted bundy able to kill innocent people, i don't want mothers killing their unborn. and it is not just the mother's body...it is her child's, too. i fail to understand why that is always overlooked. and aggieAXO, i DO plan on adopting my children, and will do so as soon as i am not still so dependant upon my own parents. if there was something that was in my power to save all the children put up for adoption or in bad foster homes believe me i would do it...until then, i am trying to save the lives of those who have yet to be born. there is no one who can say that a person born under bad circumstances cannot rise above it all and do great things. how many people do any of you know who are adopted? i know several, and i count my blessings that their biological mother had the courage and strength to have them and then give them up. every person you know has an impact on your life in some way or another...why deprive people of that simply because you THINK they will have a miserable existance? i don't think it's "socially responsible" to deny society of a potentially great person.

Monica

Don't want babies? Then don't have sex. Now, that's what I call a woman's right to choose. IMHO, of course.

Now, if a mother PLANNED on conceiving a child, and some health problems occur, then the story changes.
IMHO again, it is best to try to keep the mother
alive and abort the child.

Some people (who are often stereotyped themselves) need to keep the pro-life stereotypes to a minimum. Probably, less than five percent of pro-lifers believe in blowing up abortion clinics. At least me, my family, and some of my friends don't.

Less significant? Never. Less wanted? Unfortunately, this would appear to be the case :(

Monica, I am really glad to hear that you plan to adopt some of these hard-to-place children. You're putting your "money where your mouth is", so to speak. I believe that if more of the more outspoken "right to life" people opened up their homes to the unwanted children, their message would carry much, much more weight. Instead, a lot of people view them as being all talk and no help, because they want these children born and then aren't willing to take any of them in. That definitely makes them less credible.

I am prochoice, for a lot of reasons. There were too many women killed in back alley abortions when they were illegal and that doesn't do anyone anygood. I don't believe in abortions after the second trimester, though.
I was born and raised Catholic too. I just feel that a women makes a decision and that is none of my business. The trauma of a rape can make a woman not go to the hospital for medical attention, not because she doesn't want the attention, but
1. Insurance will not cover it unless you file a report with the police and most women do not report their rapes,
2. Most women feel that they are at fault for their rape and feel ashamed so they do not want to admit it.
There are a lot of reasons I believe abortion should be legal.
I don't think it is the best thing in the world, but that is for that woman to decide. God alone decide what is right and wrong, not me so I choose to leave it to her to make that decision and it is her soul and life that GOd looks at. It is between them.
That is just my take.

I don't see people who are pro-life and not adopting as being "all talk and no help"...there are plenty of ways people try to help the situation other than taking 5 kids in at a time. Some people, like myself, aren't financially stable enough to get past the red-tape of the adoption process...which makes it difficult for them to adopt. So, we try to voice our opinions, get laws passed, etc., etc. to help those without voices. That is sometimes all pro-lifers can do, ya know?

and just b/c a child is not adopted does not mean it is unwanted...there is probably an obscene amount of people who would LOVE to have that child in their home, but cannot afford to do so. but b/c the child is a financial strain does not mean the life should be terminated.

I love hearing everyone's opinion! It's interesting!
Monica

So it's okay for someone who is against abortion to not help out and raise a child because it is a FINANCIAL STRAIN? Don't you think the sanctity of life is more important than finances? Surely the other pro-life people can chip in to help out? Don't you think saving a life is worth going without the new car or the new clothes? Please don't make excuses for people who just run their mouths! Your beliefs appear to be similar to mine, so I can't believe I am constantly having to rebut you. Your lack of a credible argument is not helping the pro life movement one bit :( Maybe you should just stop before you really start to confuse yourself :(

Aaaaagh! This is the last time I read this thread. I never get emotional over GreekChat so I guess that means that it's time to tune out of this thread for good. Later, y'all!

Hmmm.... so people don't adopt because it's too much of a financial strain... they CHOOSE not to raise children. How is that different from the biological parents? Either way, someone's NOT CARING for a child.

And I'm sure that if you told all those lonely children in orphanages and foster care that someone would really like to adopt them, but it just costs too much, they'd feel MUCH better.

After all, it's the thought that counts, right?

aaaah! you ppl are absolutely killing me!!!!!! please, for one moment, try to take what i am saying as what i am saying, and nothing else. i am so tired of you all reading what i am so desperatley TRYING to say and making me out to be some stupid lil' right wing air head that doesn't have a clue what is going on! my ideals are just as important as yours...i have in NO way implied that any of the pro-choicers on here are IGNORANT or STUPID. i respect your views and realize that you have thought long and hard to obtain your opinion. in the same breath, i just happen to disagree, but that doesn't mean that i am any less valid in MY thoughts.
life is not expendable...no one has the right to choose when it is ok to take an innocent life simply b/c it is never ok. ok? this adoption thing is out of control...i am not saying "it is only the thought that counts" for the love of pete! adoption is another option that people should be more aware of. even those children who are, sadly but all too often, left in orphanages and foster care (note- not all foster families are abusers and molesters or only in it for the money, and not all orphanages are run by ol' girl in "Annie") can lead PERFECTLY NORMAL LIVES. and YES, for all that's holy, some people want to adopt but cannot do it b/c they are lacking the finances to even make it through a BACKGROUND CHECK THAT IS DONE DURING THE ADOPTION PROCESS...THE AGENTS TRYING TO CONNECT CHILD TO PARENT HAS TO TAKE A LOT OF THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION (finances being one of them...and money is a big deal b/c it is often regarded more highly than a home with both mother and father-ex:rosie o'donnell)...SOMETIMES THE COUPLE JUST WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. geez, ppl. and it IS different from the biological parents, AlphaChiS2K, b/c they are not CHOOSING to KILL the child.
the difference is that people who choose abortion are choosing to end the life of their child, partly b/c they believe the child IS better off dead, but partly b/c it WILL require more work on their part (meaing more work hours, less time and money for their needs). the people who choose adoption are taking a positive outlook for someone other than THEMSELVES...their child and its future.
i, killarneyrose, am in NO way trying to raise a child right now in my life...i am trying to keep a child ALIVE so someone else can and so it can at least have a shot at life. and that is all.

i am sorry for using all caps in there a bit, but you ppl are twisting what i am trying to say into something it's not. i do not want to raise a child right now, and i do not think that any pro-lifer who isn't raising an adopted child is "all talk and no help". i think that pro-life means just that, and not pro-"give me a kid and i'll do it myself". ok?

monica

Something that always confuse me
 

How can someone be pro-life, yet support the death penalty?

and

How can someone be pro-choice, yet reject the death penalty?

IMO, I think that is very incongruent (sp?), however I see those views very often.

curiouss, that's not as off as it sounds. abortion kills the lives of the innocent, whereas the death penalty is punishment for those who have committed a really serious crime. but i don't have any answer for the other.

the weird thing that i often see is that a lot of people who are pro-choice and fight so strongly for it, will fight twice as hard for animal rights (like they're against ppl wearing real fur and/or are vegetarians b/c they don't want to eat something that once was a breathing animal). i've never had that explained to me how some will look out more for the life of an animal than they will for a human. :confused:
**i don't support fur companies, just so ya know, but i will grub up on some meat**

Monica

Actually, I don't know a single pro-choice friend who protests for animal rights. Personally, I don't think that animals should be used in unnecessary experiments, but I do see the need for them in medicine. If it weren't for animal experimentation, we wouldn't have nearly as many vaccines and cures as we do currently. It's a necessary, although not especially pretty, part of this world we live in today. And that's the same way that I feel about abortion. It's not the only choice for everyone, but it is the necessary choice for some.

i just don't want to offend anyone...really. dzrose93, hope you don't think that I think pro-choicers are nasty little baby haters/animal savers...i don't! :) i just used that as an example b/c i do know of a girl from high school who was pro-choice hard core, but would not eat an egg "b/c it has the possibility of life"...some instances like that have just laid on my mind, i guess.

just wanted to clarify my thought!
:)

This is flawed logic. People aren't cognizant and self-aware until they're toddlers. Does that mean I can kill my child until he or she would be aware of what is going on? Using this idea dumping babies in dumpsters shouldn't be prosecutable-after all they don't really know they were alive.

This brings to mind another point of which we are all aware. The real debate here comes down to when life begins. Obviously we all believe that life means something different and that shades our opinions.

BTW I'm very impressed at how mature we all are!!!

In that case, the phrase "pro-life" needs to be changed. Killing is killing, innocent or guilty.

Can I get an AMEN in here? ;)

Whoa, where are you getting these statistics from? I'd like to read about this. Or, is this a matter of opinion based off the ideals and opinions of a girl you knew or know? Because one to me doesn't equal a lot. It's just weird because I don't think I know of a single person who is pro-choice that protests testing with animals, or anything related to animal rights'.

d

Okay, I guess I should speak up here.

I am completely, 100% pro choice, in all circumstances. I am also againt the death penalty and am a strict vegetarian and an advocate (although quietly) of animal rights. Whether my views make logical sense or not doesn't bother me, because I feel very strongly in my heart that I am right.

To me, it really comes down to the fact that a fetus or "unborn child" CANNOT LIVE ON ITS OWN. It is entirely dependent upon its mother, and I do not think that ANYONE has the right to tell a woman that she must (to use DukeBlue's wording again) DONATE HER BODY for nine months to carry something she doesn't want.

I'm not saying that a convicted murderer (who, remember, may well be innocent, but I won't get into a whole discussion of how racist and unfair the death penalty is) or an animal is more important than a child, but they are not dependent upon someone else for the very basics of existence, like breathing. I think that abortion is more of a woman issue than a child issue, and that the woman is the one who should determine what to do. To me, it comes down to the fact that I think the government should not interfere with something that only affects YOU or WHAT IS PART OF YOUR OWN BODY and not a creature living outside of it.

That's just my $.02, since y'all didn't seem to think there were any pro choice animal rights types out there.

I am pro choice, pro death penalty and pro animal rts. Comparng a fur farm / slaughter house and abortion are 2 different things. Animals in fur farms are kept in small cages and then killed either through eltrocution or some other mean-not a pretty sight. I won't go into the nasty detail of how your steak got on your plate tonight. I do not preach to my friends that meat is bad-if they want to eat meat that is their rt. I don't dictate to them what they can or cannot put on their plate to eat.

Personally being a veterinarian I have soooooooo much more respect for animals than humans b/c I see the way every freakin day that I work how disgusting humans can be-not only to animals but also to their kids or others. If you are pro-life all power to you BUT DO NOT TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY. BTW I eat eggs b/c I don't believe they are a "LIFE"-I have no problems eating eggs (free range of course). \

I will never change my mind on this subject-you can tell me all you want about the good orphanges or the adoption scenarios etc... I respect all of your opinions and am happy that we have the freedom to express these opinions but please don't let other people (ie the govt) tell me what I can and cannot do to my own body-this not only includes abortion but also assisted suicide.

yeah, and i don't think the process of sucking that baby out was really all that pretty, either.

...but it isn't just YOUR body. as a person who had to study biology a lot, i would think you would know when someone becomes pregnant, that means they are going to have a baby...which has a body all its own. it is definitely dependant on the mother for nutrients and to help it develop, but that doesn't mean it does not have it's own physical body. so, it ISN'T just yours to control.

and, i have yet to provide any statistics, d, (this has been addressed b/4)...all of what i say is what i believe to be true based on how i value life. when i have a statistic or a number or a website you can verify things, then i promise i will fill you all in. until then, i will simply voice my opinion, and you are free to agree or disagree.

That attitude kind of disturbs me. It reminds me of when that guy threw a puppy of the bridge,
he got more years for that, while some people got less years or none FOR KILLING HUMAN BEINGS. A more specific example, in the same area, a guy got at least ten years for beating his dog to death, another guy got NO years for killing a cousin of mine. :mad:

It is my control. The fetus needs me to live. To say it has a body all its own is an oxymoron.

To curiouss I am sorry about your cousin and I agree that humans should be punished for both crimes to animals and humans.

what i said was it has a physical body all its own (regardless of how dependent it is upon the mother, it is still another being)...you are controlling another life when you end it abruptly.

Eek, I'm up too late.

Curiouss, I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that you should be mad if someone goes to jail for killing an animal. I think that you should be mad that people kill other people and don't go to jail. I'd also like to know where a guy got ten years for beating a dog to death, because in my studies of state animal cruelty laws, I have not heard of such a thing. And I'm sorry to hear about your cousin.

AggieAXO, although I disagree with you on the death penalty, as usual you are my hero! :D

I not mad because people go to jail for killing animals. I am mad because some of those people get more years for killing animals than for killing humans.

That incident occurred in the outskirts of St. Louis. This man's dog bit his daughter, then he got some type of hammer and beat him to death with it. He may have not got exactly ten years. But, he got more years than the guy who killed my cousin, who got none.

ok, im sorry, i tried to stay away (really I did) but I cant....:)

Ok id just like to say that NO pro-lifer here is trying to say what you can do with your body. Like everyone else we're just stating OUR opinion.

Ok, and do you feel the same about a person on a respirator? They're dependent on something and cant live on their own.

OK, THIS IS JUST FROM MY OBSERVATION SO DO NOT TAKE OFFENSE TO THIS NEXT THING.....ok everyone keeps saying how pro-lifers attack and get hostile, well no offense and im not saying all (and i still love how mature we're all being even though its gotten a lil outta hand at times) but many pro-choicers are like ripping down pro-lifers and getting hostile over are views, way more then pro-lifers on pro-choicers. We have as much right to believe in ours as you do yours and as long as we're not forcing stuff on you, stay CALM. Opinions, thats all this is. (and this is for no one in particular and kind of goes for both sides of the issue).

ok will try to stay away again. Happy Holidays to all

ah, thank you! an example i was searching for and couldn't quite put into words very well! sometimes i feel all alone in here, so i appreciate the back-up...come back more often!!! :D

monica

Yes, but someone who is on a respirator is not dependent upon the BODY of another to survive. He or she depends on machinery, not a person. No person is being forced to donate her body to keep the person alive. I think it is entirely different. When someone is on a respirator, nobody else's body is being sacrificed against her will.

As a side note, I also think that someone who needs a respirator should be able to decide whether to go on one or not, and should be able to tell another person what her wishes are should she ever be in that situation. I don't think anyone should ever be hooked up to a respirator if it is against her wishes. As soon as the government starts interfering with an individual's choice in dealing with her own body and medical treatment in any form, I think we are all in big trouble.

"I also think that someone who needs a respirator should be able to decide whether to go on one or not, and should be able to tell another person what her wishes are should she ever be in that situation. I don't think anyone should ever be hooked up to a respirator if it is against her wishes. As soon as the government starts interfering with an individual's choice in dealing with her own body and medical treatment in any form, I think we are all in big trouble."--valkyrie

ppl do have that option, but not everyone has a living will dictating what they want done in a case where they may need a respirator...

when a baby is born, it still needs the care of others. it has to be fed and changed...which is taking from the mother, just the pocketbook, not the body anymore. so...when it's inside the womb it's one thing, but when it's outside, it's another...?

First, I didn't see the address about statistics before, I guess it's "my bad" roofles.
Second, I respect what everyone says and believes. BUT, when someone tries or implies to pass opinion off as fact, I like to see stats, figures, something to help me better see the big picture, maybe to open up my mind so to speak.



d