make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Local group participates in national Life Chain

Abortion is a hot button issue on the campaign trail and here at home. Several local church groups banded together Sunday for an anti-abortion demonstration. Hundreds of people held up pro-life signs along College Road in Wilmington. Many prayed while doing so. Demonstrators said they got a mixed reaction from motorists driving by. “The majority are supportive. There are a lot of silent people. Occasional folks that don't believe what we do - they'll put there thumbs down and frown, that kind of thing,” said protester David Heinrichs. The demonstrators were out there for about an hour. It was part of an annual, national event called Life Chain. In 2007, there were more than 1,300 "Life Chains" built in communities across the United States.

Disclaimer: Comments posted on this, or any story are opinions of those people posting them, and not the views or opinions of WWAY NewsChannel 3, its management or employees. You can view our comment policy here.


Local Life Chain

Interesting that there are no "safe" sites online for any of these groups. My first and fourteenth right amendments are protected also, so it is really surprising that I am not allowed to counter-protest at that time. I wonder how many of these protesters are willing to help the children after they are born. I'm thinking many of these protesters are the first to stamp their feet and say they aren't giving "government hand-outs" to those in need. I'm also fairly certain most of these protesters are pro-death (penalty). This just makes me sick.

When Life Begins

Mr. Rhodes. Consistency doesn't necessarily have anything to do with common sense. Our laws (as are our lives) are fraught with inconsistencies. People are complex. I argue that life begins by the same measure that we say life ends - with the heartbeat. This happens 22 days after conception. However, the average person cannot distinguish a human fetus from a chicken or pig fetus until about 12 weeks. I am uncomfortable with abortion at any stage after the heartbeat can be seen. I am sickened by the delivery of a baby to it's neck and then killing it. Early in gestation I cannot tell the difference between an embryo and a blood clot. But by 7 months, an inutero baby can open its eyes, suck its thumb, and begin to respond to its mother's voice. I understand that you see this as an inconsistency, but it is very clear to me. Rhetorical arguments about when life begins thwarts any meaningful progress on banning partial birth abortions.

You've actually helped me

You've actually helped me prove my point. "I argue that..." "...we say..." "...the average person..." Again, evidence of inconsistancy because these are SUBJECTIVE views and beliefs not shared by every individual. From a neutral standpoint, why should I choose YOUR subjective view over someone else's? My argument isn't what I "believe". It's what biology and nature, scientifc fact, have designed. It doesn't require my belief. Your argument about the heartbeat, for example, isn't accurate. Brain death can actually occur BEFORE a heart stops beating, most notably thanks to technology. Should I bring up some cases as examples or have the recent publicized ones stuck in your mind? It's also true that specific cells on the body continue to grow, even after what we call death. Yet, as a whole, the individual has stop its process of development. Again, a biological fact, not a subjective belief. Andrew

Abortion is an extremely viable option

Look, lets face it. Not every girl who gets pregnant is equiped to be a parent. and not every baby that isnt aborted is adopted. So, that leaves us with... *Full foster homes, tons of which house insane guardians and abused children. *Streets teeming with homeless, and undernoticed human life. *A crime rate that soars out of revenge for the terrible childhoods past suffered. I do not believe the laws of this nation should be founded with religious context, so I do not care when life begins for the religious right. I do not think abortion should be taken lightly, I love children and am sad to see children die. I do think people need to remove emotion from some issues, and think. Like an adult.

Meet in the Middle

So many people treat this as an all or nothing subject. This is the first place I've heard anyone modulate from what are usually diametrically opposed viewpoints. Hospitals have guidelines in determining whether or not a preterm infant receives heroic lifesaving measures. This is usually determined by how far along the pregnancy is, or by the weight of the infant. Why can we not use the same standard in abortion legislation? I personally can't see the tragedy of a few multiplying cells (that you can only see with a microscope) being terminated. But partial-birth abortions are gruesome and barbaric - a practice that I am sure gives most supporters of abortion reason to pause. Does a baby have to be delivered beyond it's shoulders to be considered a baby?


I agree 100% with your statement. "I personally can't see the tragedy of a few multiplying cells (that you can only see with a microscope) being terminated. But partial-birth abortions are gruesome and barbaric - " I believe it should be a choice with guidelines. I just don't think it should be completely illegal. It should NOT be so extreme as to say no NEVER or yes ANYTIME. My position has simply been for the choice to be there. I have no problem with guidelines. There HAVE to be guidelines/laws/ restrictions whatever you want to call them, because otherwise it WOULD become a method of birth control. As far as taking emotion out of it?..... Then see my previous statement- no matter who believes what about abortion, it will be done. So removing all "emotion" what are we as a society going to do about that fact? Because at the end of the day after everyone is done throwing their 2 cents in..... we as a society need to make sure it is safe.

I was going to respond to

I was going to respond to someone else on that issue along their "none of your business" arguments. But this one seems better. The fact is that deciding at what moment a developing individual is wothy of the same standards of Human Rights as later developmental stages is, for lack of a better term, "tradition". The fact is that each of us has our own preconceptions of what "life" is as well as what "Human" is. Think about these two situations: The Birthday. A "tradition". We have, in a significant part of Human society, decided to recognize the time of Birth. Why? Biology doesn't care about whether we recognize and celebrate a child's birth any more than it cares if we celebrate the conception date. How about medical conditions? Take me for example. I've been visually impaired all my life. Traditionally, many would say, when asked, that we were visually impaired "since birth". HOWEVER, much of my condition is inherited. Which means genetically. Which means, in fact, that I've been visually impaired since CONCEPTION. Yet, tradition has instilled the response "since birth". Biology doesn't care where we, as a society, recognizes what looks like, or is in general, Human. Biology says that a Human fertilized egg, an egg produced by a Human and fertilized by sperm produced by a Human, will develop along Human developmental stages. NO other species develops under those circumstances. Doesn't require ANYONE's belief one way or the other. Biology says this is the way it works. Doesn't matter, in fact, if we have a tradition to recognize the passing of an individual at any stage of their development. So, whether we see a single cell as being a Human because of it's Human genes, or a baby in the second trimester as being worthy of Human Rights protections or even a child in the third trimester. These are decisions based on individual belief. And if we argue the point that it's not Human and therefore expendable by need or intent at one stage of development and no one else's Right to interfere in that, why would it be appropriate to say that someone else who holds a different view, a view that an individual at a later stage of development still can be disposed of, for whatever reason, and that the person who thinks that the later stage is actually Human should just keep their nose out of it? If we argue based solely on Freedom of Choice, then abortion, even after birth (and no sarcasm or smart remark is meant here), should, in fact, be legal because no one else has the Right to decide for another Parent what they may or may not do with their own child. You may use "viable" as an argument, but who are you to decide for someone else what is or is not "viable"? We can both come up with various arguments about what "viable" is to support a lower or higher developmental stage. So, scientifically and biologically, we should be deciding what Human is, rather than using tradition or opinion. In the end, though, without fixing and improving all other alternatives and creating new alternatives, outright banning abortion, even in part, isn't sufficiently helpful. Andrew

I wonder how many of these

I wonder how many of these protesters have adopted children themelves???

I wonder how many of these protestors...

...realize that we're about to see the Socialists in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress because the Republican Party won't get off this issue? It's estimated that the Republicans lose anywhere from 10-15% of the female vote under forty because of their stand on this issue. Another 5% of the general vote (both genders) is lost because people view it as a purely religious issue, inappropriate for national policy in a secular nation. That translates to millions of votes the Republicans consistently surrender because of this one issue. If the Republican Party would leave Roe v Wade behind, and simply say, "It's between you and God lady," McCain would be in a far better position than he is right now. With a looming global recession, Islamic fundamentalists who want wipe out America, deteriorating relations with Russia and our gradual slide from economic and military superpower, the legality of abortion shouldn't even be a back-burner issue.


Probably more than those who push abortion as the end-all-be-all solution. Of course, being as Anti-Religion as I tend to be, that doesn't mean those kids who are adopted by extreme religious folks are going to turn out all that mentally stable either. Andrew

Non-Religious Anti-Abortion

The unfortunate thing is that there are many non-religious individuals who are also Anti-Abortion and have a great many logical, intelligent reasons to be against it. But the only counter-argument that many Pro-Abortionists can come up with is arguing against religious beliefs or against gender, or some other nonsensical rebuttal that has nothing to do with the issue whatsoever. The best way to end the need for abortion is to improve existing systems, such as the adoptiong/foster systems which are seriously in need of overhaul. Also, improved health care to aid struggling families, improved and new medical technology for the various medical reasons that abortions become neccessary for, and improved education beyond "Hey, have as much sex as you want! Don't worry about a thing! There are ways to circumvent your responsibility to the act!". And there are many other situations which could be changed or improved which would, eventually, lead to the near removal of abortion as a desired option. "Choice" and "Life" are very broad terms and actually cover a great many issues, abortion only being one. Introduce other "choice" and "life" issues into the mix and see just how "Pro-Choice" or "Pro-Life" some folks REALLY are. This is why I use the direct terms of "Pro-Abortion" and "Anti-Abortion". Because we're talking about abortion here. Andrew

Andrew, I don't think that

Andrew, I don't think that anyone is "pro-abortion". Abortion is a terrible thing. That said, neither I nor you nor the government have the right to tell a woman what she should do with her body. I agree that it is used as birth control by some women and that needs to be changed. Women need to be taught about and given access to birth control and not encouraged to keep having children that they cannot afford or do not want. I also agree that the system needs to be changed. But, don't call me pro-abortion. I am Pro-choice and while that is a choice I would NEVER make for myself I can't be the one to tell another woman that she shouldn't. I don't walk in her shoes and I don't have her life.

Weak arguments

Once again, gender is brought to bear to eliminate opposing viewpoints. Another sign that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own. And, yes, on the specific issue of Abortion, you are Pro-Abortion as I am Anti-Abortion. We're talking specific issues here. No reason to hide behind mislabeling or sound bites. Based on SCIENTIFIC FACT, no religion required, we are NOT talking about a single individual (the mother), we're talking about two or more individuals (the mother AND 1 or more newly developing individuals). FACTUALLY, there is no difference in an individual who has just begun their development after an egg is fertilized, than a baby who is a mere week from birth, or a toddler, or a teen, or an adult, or a senior citizen. In each case, the individual continues to develop from one stage to the next. You can point out various differences in each developmental stage, but in the end, the developing individual is still a unique, seperate (even if biologically connected) individual from the mother. There is no use in trying to play a shell game with the facts. As I said, religion isn't required in this argument at all. Andrew

Your "Weak Arguments"

Mr. Rhodes- I must disagree with you. In fact your post is so wrong on so many levels it is hard to put it into words when all I really want to say "Really?, REALLY? REALLY????" You are so far off the mark it is ridiculous. Gender is not the argument and you appear to be using that as a way to dismiss anyone who doesn't agree with your position. I fail to see how what was said is "Another sign that your argument isn't strong enough to stand on its own." Here is a simple fact of life: ABORTIONS WILL BE PERFORMED WHETHER THEY ARE LEGAL OR NOT and REGARDLESS OF ANYONE'S RELIGIOUS STANCE. (no shell game there!) You cannot FACTUALLY (as you are so fond of saying)refute that. I am 100% in agreement with Guest Mom. I am in NO Way Pro- Abortion. I am Pro- Choice. I believe it is a woman's right to choose what happens to her body and no OTHER man (I am referring to an outsider, NOT the man involved in the situation), woman, government, or religion has the right to dictate that choice. The term Pro- Abortion is quite simply a "shock" term. You can sit on your high horse and sound like you know what you are talking about- but you truly don't. As someone who believes in the choice of abortion, I feels bottom line- IT NEEDS TO BE SAFE. Each individual's circumstances are different, and who do you think you are to tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body? It is not your business, your place, nor does it affect you in any way. If you personally think having an abortion is wrong, then don't have one! That is YOUR CHOICE. Oh-you can't, can you, you will never have to make that decision will you???? But- see how that works? It would be your choice- the one that you felt was right for you and your circumstances. That does not mean I believe it okay to use as a method of birth control. I firmly believe in education, fixing our current social services system, and limiting when it can be performed. SO THAT IT IS SAFE FOR ALL INVOLVED. You are entitled to your opinion absolutely, but just because mine isn't the same as your's doesn't make mine or the millions of others who are pro-choice wrong, or Pro- Abortion, or hiding behind mislabeling or sound bites, or playing a shell game. Until the baby growing inside his or her mother's body would be viable on it's own, it is not an individual. (And I didn't say until full term- I said viable outside the womb)

And, as many do, you

And, as many do, you continue to have an individual'sinion dismissed based on their gender. You can play your shell game all you want, your statements are clearly made. And, as many do, you continue to want the individual developing to be disposable, non-Human, not treated the same as any other continuing to develop Huamn. Science and FACTS continues to trump your argument. And, as before, if I lumped all the issues that make up "Choice" into one group, I, too, would be "Pro-Choice". Just as if I lumped all issues that make up "Life" into one group, I would be "Pro-Life". But this is the specific issue of Abortion. If, as a Pro-Abortionist, you are too cowardly to admit such and want to hide behind a misleading term, then that is... your Choice. As to the "none of your business" argument, you've failed to point out that there are a great many situations where "none of your business" has been overruled by society and government alike. How one individual treats another have had social and legal rules imposed on them in every society and culture. In our own, even Parents may not do with their children whatever they please and "none of your business" amounts to squat. From choosing a religion or non-religion, to corporal punishment (even through abusive means), to what they may or may not expose their children to in media. The "none of your business" argument is equally misleading when it comes to the suppose Right to take the life of one's own child. Andrew

A couple things....

First to Mr. Rhodes, I must be dense as I have no idea how I am dismissing anyone based on gender. Your statement makes no sense. I NEVER said it wasn't human, or a NON- Human. You really love to use terms that are shocking or offensive in order to win your arguments. You can make it sound as disgusting as you want- because it is- but that doesn't make your argument right. As offensive as you make it sound.... it still doesn't change the fact that I believe it is a personal choice. And by saying I am pro- choice in no way makes me a coward! That is just you....sitting on that high horse of yours and belittling people who do not agree with you. You can rant and rave all you want about me really being Pro-Abortion - I can disect that term too. I am not Pro abortion- as you insist anyone who believes in the choice is because: I don't go around preaching that everyone should have one, or that it is a wonderful thing to do. Nor does anyone else who believes in the right to choose. I am not lumping, nor is anyone else, ALL issues that exist with regards to CHOICE or LIFE into my argument- And just because people do- that doesn't make it right. I am being specific in what I believe there should be a choice in. I think the term PRO- LIFE IS HIDING BEHIND THE TRUTH AND BEING A COWARD. Those who call themselves pro-life are in essence against the choice of it- they are anti choice- that is a more accurate term. Pro- lifers don't believe in the death penalty and lump themselves in with being against abortion. THEY ARE 2 SEPARATE ISSUES. My reasoning for them being 2 separate issues is this: The people who received the death penalty have nothing to do with my right to decide what I want to happen to my body. Because regrdless of your FACTS-that is what it boils down to. It is my body. As far as your non- of your business arguement. Once again- you love to lump everything together. Our society has more freedoms than a lot of others.... and who ever said I was in agreement with the government or anyone else for that matter telling me what I may or may not do with my children? Or prayer in school? Or anything else you want to bring up..... Our society has gone to hell in a hand basket since everyone has been forcing their LACK OF values and mores on everyone else. Let me make it simple- VERY SIMPLE for you. It is my body, not yours or anyone elses. NO ONE has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do to my body. Obviously that is a problem for you and those "anti-choice" yahoos... so I will break it down a little more: IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHETHER IT IS LEGAL OR NOT- GET IT?????? IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!!!! SO, let's make it SAFE. I really don't want to go back to the days of women sticking coat hangers inside their bodies because they have NO OTHER CHOICE! (There's some shocking words for you on my side of the fence!) To guest1969- I fully believe it is a baby and never meant to imply that is wasn't- nor meant to not call something what it is.... To Commonsense- I agree with you 100% .... I guess I should have said completely "overhauled" which will NEVER happen! :)

Did you take classes to

Did you take classes to dance around like that? The FACT is, BIOLOGY, not me, not you, not the government, BIOLOGY decided that what is conceived by Humans IS Human, and therefore a seperate entity with Rights seperate from you or I or anyone else. Their life is NOT, despite your lies and misinformation, YOUR body. You can play your little shell game with "Pro-Choice"/"Anti-Choice". It has NOTHING to with the Right of a Parent to willingly take the life of their own child. I notice that the list of "Choices" that you display are to abort or not to abort. So much for not liking abortion. There ARE other solutions. There ARE other solutions that can exist. But apparently, from your OWN comments, abortion is THE solution. This isn't an issue of morality. Morality is irrelevant. If you're going to grant a Parent the Right to take the life of their own child at one stage, then there is no logical reason why that Parent shouldn't be allowed to take the life of their own child at any other stage of development. Whether that child is in the first, second, or even third trimester before birth. Or even AFTER birth. Who are YOU to force YOUR preceptions of Parental Rights or even what is "viable" on ANYONE else? Biology, however, doesn't care about our perceptions. It follows the same pattern each and every time. Even laws throughout the land vary on when abortion is or isn't acceptable. Society decides that a third trimester baby is worth aborting, fine and dandy. Oh, wait, another state decided something different. Who's right? Who's wrong? Will it be you? Will it be them? Biology doesn't care. It just develops the living individual until the individual dies, whether by natural causes or intent. You can prattle the Pro-Aboriton party line. Biology still beats the misinformed dogma. Andrew

If it's not a baby.....

Can we agree that the term "baby" means a baby human? And if so, then if it's not a baby inside the womb, you're not pregnant. Right? So if there IS a baby inside the womb....and we agree that a baby is a baby human...any intentional means of destroying that life - REGARDLESS of whether it can live outside the womb on its own or not - then that baby has been killed through the process known as abortion. And yes, before you ask, I'm pro choice. I don't believe that anyone - male or female - has the right to tell me what to do with the contents of my uterus. But I also believe in calling things what they really are. If it's not a baby you're carrying, you're not pregnant. And if you're not pregnant, then you've no need for an abortion.

Excellent post...except...

..we are NEVER going to "fix" our social services system, because the basic concept is flawed. We will never teach people to be responsible and self-reliant as long as we coddle them and try to make their life whole after they commit mistake after mistake after mistake. After a temporary period of assistance we need to say, "Enough, you are on your own"...but you and I know that will never happen. To put it bluntly, we as a society don't have the stomach, backbone, or cajones to do what is needed....and so, it will just continue to get worse, because we're afraid to let poor people know the true nature of poverty.

I've always wonder why the

I've always wonder why the father never is given a choice. The father doesn't have a say in whether the baby get's born or not...what if he doesn't want the baby. If he doesn't want the baby, maybe he shouldn't have to pay for it once it's born. If he's responsible for it once it's born then he should also be responsible for it while it's in the mothers womb meaning he should have a say about what's done about it.


On the issues of Family financial support, I'm all for ending spousal support. It was a stupid idea to begin with. Child support is more difficult. Both financially as well as participation wise, the system throughout is fouled up royally. Politics, bigotry, and just outright stupidity made the system what it is today. Example: Parent is made to pay child support. The income is checked and based on pre-tax, pre-deduction values. Big honkin' amount taken out of check. Then the taxes and deductions strike. Oh, and they only recognize CERTAIN bills. Gotta keep you in check, ya know. Anyway, potential solution: have no taxes taken out of your check. Oh dear! Now one less taxpayer! Hmmm.... Oh, and tough on those financial surprises that pop up. And hey, if you get behind, you go to jail. Yeah, lost home, lost job. Yeah, real useful. Or, hey, you can live in a slum! It's all you're worth, after all! So long as the kid's being taken care of. But, hey, you're a bad Parent if you have the kid over in such a bad neighborhood. Or, hey, if you don't want the kid in that neighborhood or you can't afford to visit the kid often, you must still be a bad Parent! Oh, and, hey, if your financies get really bad, you can loose your home, which means a loss of job, which means can't pay child support, which means jail! Hey! You've got free room and board! And let's not forget Parental Rights and the option of a current Parent to Voluntarily have their Rights Revoked. Many states don't allow the Voluntary Revocation of Parental Rights. And, in many cases, the Revocation his its legal limitations, as well as being overridden by the state (a well known and sticking case in my mind is Cody Posey (check his name on Wikipedia)). There are a lot of situations where child support and Parental Rights need to be overhauled and fixed. As to the Right of a Father in regards to abortion, I maintain the alternative options, sich as those above and previously mentioned in other posts as ways to hopefully not have to face abortion as an option for anyone, no matter who they are. Andrew

Who upset you? When men

Who upset you? When men start enjoying the pleasure of pregnancy, is when they should have a say.

Nobody upset me. I only have

Nobody upset me. I only have one child, born to my wife, and this was a planned pregnancy. I just don't understand why the female (mom) is given all the rights in these situations. Yes it's her body, but we aren't talking about her body, we are talking about a couple's baby...two people's baby. Not a single persons baby. That is my biggest point. This baby wasn't created by one person. He/she was created by two people and both of those people should be allowed to decide what happens to him/her. How a baby is born should be up to the wife b/c then we are talking about the woman's body, but what happens to the baby inside the women is not the womans' body.

Two very good reasons to keep abortion legal

First, a woman should have the right to decide if she carries the child to full term or not. It's HER body, not anyone else's. She should have the right to terminate the pregnancy anytime in the first or second trimester. I have no problem with making it illegal once the fetus is viable outside the womb, waiting periods, or parental notification requirements. Second, if you read "Freakonomics," you're familiar with the argument that the remarkably low crime rates of the Nineties were due to the offspring of dirtbags that WEREN'T born in the Seventies, pre-Hyde Amendment, when abortion was viewed as nothing more than another birth control option. The simple fact is that there are tens of thousands of babies born every year who shouldn't be born. No one is going to adopt them, we all gripe about having to pay to feed them or send them to a doctor, their parents can't do an effective job of nurturing them, and they wind up dead on the street or in prison by the age of twenty. We read about them on this website every week. Along the way, they cost millions in direct losses to crime. Every single "anti-poverty program" the government has designed does nothing but encourage people to have children they can't afford. From our multi-tiered system of taxing income to Medicaid, more kids equal more money. Get rid of the incentives to breed irresponsibly and reverse the Hyde Amendment. Free abortions for the indigent with sterilization thrown in on the third procedure. Smarter to pay $500 now than tens or even hundreds of thousands later. That would be the best way to eradicate poverty.

If the reply I made above a

If the reply I made above a few moments ago comes through, then a response to your "First" is there. The anti-poverty systems are as flawed as the adoption/foster system. Sadly, most of what is done by the government is driven by motivations other than what is in the best interest of the citizens or society as a whole. Religion and ambition are two of the biggest hinderances to a decent designed system. On the sterilaization add on, not likely to happen. You'd have to fit in some serious loophole protections, plus the argument that it would drive individuals to seek unregulated/unreported abortions. On the surface, it makes a sort of logical sense, but digging deeper, would cause more problems than it solved. But, hey, I'm not stopping suggestions, good or bad. Every improvement, even a small one, makes abortion less and less necessary. Andrew

I agree, Andrew

It is a human baby, plain and simple. Where we disagree is that I believe the host has a right to kill that baby as long as it is dependent upon her for its existence. Tick, tapeworm, or tyke-to-be, a woman has the right to say, "I want it out, now." It's her body. I never cease to be amazed by my fellow conservatives. The ones griping the loudest about having to give a quarter of their paycheck to take care of deadbeats are invariably the ones also grousing the loudest about abortion being legal. I tell them all the same thing: Either work to get the Hyde Amendment overturned or lovingly and cheerfully surrender even more of what you have in the spirit of Christian charity.... ...because if you think that these people are going to magically live their life responsibly, by the same mores and morals as you and not have these babies, you're living in a fantasy world. Either pay to terminate the pregnancies and get out cheaply, now, or stand by to empty your wallet for a lot of dependents that you can't even claim. It really IS that simple.

The "viable" argument is

The "viable" argument is always a challenge. :) No, I'm not being sarcastic when I ask this, I truly am being serious: Why doesn't it apply ALL the time? Even a baby after birth isn't fully viable. It requires aid from outside forces to prevent a natural death of starvation or other conditions. What of the individual in a coma or in the ICU? If the individual cannot take care of itself, and there are no family members, does that mean, because the individual is connected to hospital machinery, that the individual "belongs" (in a small sense anyway) to the hospital? Should it belong to the government? And what of family members? We've already set up systems where a Parent, or even a spouse, may make decisions regarding the life of the individual. But, as noted many times, it's THEIR body. Or, is it? Again, I'm not being sarcastic or belittling the issue. I'm serious. Consistancy is a big thing. Even in the legal system and social systems, consistancy in the US blows chunks BIG time. Yes, there are number of folks who fall back or are even trapped on the government assistance (I could speak from personal past experience on that), but there ARE ways, contrary to popular belief, that exist to fix the problem. Nor do ALL solutions work for EVERY individual/family. Use one solution to fix as many as possible. Use another to fix those that didn't get fixed the first time. And so on and so on. I don't believe in the one solution... solution. :) Andrew

Let me ask you this

Let me ask you this question. You just brought up the whole life support point. If a family member is on life support, can not live without the assistance of machinery. The family has he “choice” to take the person off life support right? In all actuality they are “terminating” this person’s life. If a woman is 12 weeks pregnant that “fetus” can not withstand life outside of the womb/machinery. My question is a person has the “choice” to take a person off of life support why is it not okay to give women the “choice” to have an abortion. Neither will live without “assistance.”

Again, we're talking about

Again, we're talking about two or more individuals. The mother, and one or more children. Technologically speaking, we cannot, at this time, safely move/remove a fertilized egg from any part of the mother to be replanted in another part of the mother, in a surrogate mother/father (again, current technology issues), or an artificial womb (which also isn't technologically available yet). In this specific case, even a tubal pregnancy applies as a comparison. The argument one might make that "we can't do it" or "abortion is easier, less expensive" is only valid because research hasn't been made in those areas. Under CURRENT circumstances, the unfortunate fact is that the child will be lost with the mother you describe, or must be sacrificed in the case I mention. Technologically, we can't seperate the child in either case. In the case you mention, the mother's Rights, hopefully being recognized by their own Parent or other family member through living wills, etc, conflict with the child's Rights. But, since the technology isn't there to respect the Rights of the child, the child ends up sacrificed. In the case I mention, because of a lack of technology, BOTH will definitely die unless the child is sacrificed. In both cases, advancements in numerous technologies would preserve the child, and even the mother as well. Unfortunately, under current circumstances, we must give way to the situations at hand. In the case of the dying mother you describe, the mother will die regardless, whereas the general reference you make as to why someone should also be given the Right to take the life of anothe rindividual, a child, includes healthy Parents carrying the child. So, it isn't an exact comparison. Andrew