[phil_will1]

I have long believed that the whole abortion issue turns on one very simple question: When does human life begin? As long as we cling to the ridiculous notion that life does not begin until birth (which is the only way you can justify abortion on demand), you will have blatant inconsistencies and contradictions such as this.

I wonder how many pro-choice people woud defend this woman's decision with the tired old phrase "It's a woman's right to choose!".

[TigersEye]

I wonder how many pro-choice people woud defend this woman's decision with the tired old phrase "It's a woman's right to choose!".

I'm rabidly pro-life but I would defend this woman on the grounds that it was her right to choose not to have major surgery. One child lived, that seems like proof to me that death was not a certainty without the C-section.

FWIW I think it was a selfish decision but one in which she had to weigh the risk of surgery against.

[greenwolf]

I have long believed that the whole abortion issue turns on one very simple question: When does human life begin?

You're right about it turning on one question, but you've got the question wrong. The real question is:

Is there such a thing as a "right to life" which is sufficient to compel hardship and suffering on the part of others?

To my thinking, the obvious answer is NO.

My advice to my fellow conservatives: Use this issue as trade goods; that's all it's good for.

The proposition should be, total or near-total abortion rights for the elimination of every gun-control law in the land other than the second ammendment.

Think about it this way: it would only be liberals and their get being aborted. After twenty years, liberals would be an inconsequential minority in the land.

[KeyTapper]

I wonder how many pro-choice people woud defend this woman's decision with the tired old phrase "It's a woman's right to choose!".

There's a huge difference between maintaining a pregnancy until birth (no abortion) and the government expecting a woman to submit to being cut open.

I'm very much against abortion when it's used to get rid of an inconvenient fetus. Abortion to save the life of the mother or in the case of incest or rape I can support. However, this case of refusing to have a caesarian section to save the life of a fully formed child, when the mother was healthy enough to endure it, kind of stymied me.

Even if I were not in good health, I would opt for the surgery. There is a bond that forms between the mother and the child she is carrying and with all four of my children I felt it very strongly. I could easily bear testimony that the child I was carrying was a sentient person with a soul, who was developing, learning and communicating with me in a very personal and wonderful way. Apparently, though, that bond is not felt equally strongly by all prospective mothers. The prosecutors or doctors or somebody seems to think the woman's entire concern regarding caesarean section is cosmetic. However, I'm wondering if it could have been fear of being cut into. Was she fearful that a huge scar would cause her husband to abandon her? We just don't know enough about this woman's motives to form any kind of objective opinion, so it's fruitless to do so.

Leaving her motives out of the equation, should a woman who will not be cut into to save her unborn, full term baby be charged with murder if the baby dies because of her decision? As the article suggests, it leads to a very slippery slope. Where does it end? Do we charge a woman with murder if her baby dies because she didn't follow a healthy diet, prescribed by her doctor? I'm very uncomfortable with charging her with murder, the reason being that it is her body and she should be free to make decisions regarding being cut open for any reason. But! That's too close to the pro-choice/pro-abortion argument that a woman should be allowed to make her own decisions regarding her body.

I guess, my question is this: At the point where a woman is carrying a fully formed human being, is it murder for her not to do everything possible to deliver a baby? My uncomfortable response is, no.

[Flightdeck]

My wife is pregnant with our first, so now I hear all these updates on what's new with the baby. The other day she told me that it (we don't know the sex) found it's first toy: it is swinging around the umbilical cord for fun. Not only is that hilarious, it makes me even more dumbfounded that somebody could believe it isn't a human life. It is a human merely in it's very first stages of development, same as any other lifeform. Mark my words, abortion will go down as a stain on American history right next to slavery.