I don't care what you say, the embryo is not human. Everybody makes mistakes.

I think that perhaps it would be more accurate to say that an embryo is not an independent human being. It is however demonstrably human.

...to the discussion at hand.

First let me say that I'm 100% pro-choice. Only the pregrant women should decide. PERIOD.

But to say 'that's irrelevant' is the sign of a wimp! I just read a great article in the LA Times by two women that are pro-choice and they say the pro-choice movement is losing ground big time AND it is because they continue to pretent, like the two pro-choice poster here that what this choice is about (life inside of a women's body) is irrelevant.

In other words the pro-choice point of view says 'women should have the choice since it is their body,,,,it doesn't matter WHAT inside this body,,,,, just doesn't matter'.

Just show a group of women an ultrasound of a 8 week old and ask them if that is 'irrelevant' or doesn't matter? NO WAY!

Their point was that we in the pro-choice movement need to wise up. As science and medicine continue to improve this 'what is inside the women's body' will continue to push more and more people towards outlawing a women's right to decide.

I agree that we pro-choicers should speak more openly about the ambiguity of the status of the fetus. The problem, however, is that any recognition on the pro-choice side of such ambiguity (see, for example, Hillary Clinton's comments) is seized upon by pro-lifers as vindication of their point of view---and thus, of the necessity of legislation to outlaw abortion.

It's entirely possible that if pro-life leaders would recognize that women have some role in their pregnancies (beyond that of breeding vessel), that pro-choice leaders would seize upon that as vindication of their point of view. Given that such recognition has yet to be extended, however, we don't know what would happen.

As for technology, by all means show what's happening in the woman's uterus---as long as you pull back the camera to show not just the uterus, but also the woman.

Because what I said that it's irrelevant what that particular person thinks of the products of conception. The fact that a simple, effective drug is available to end early pregnancy is the best news we've had in years. I have no doubt that RU486 has cut down on first-trimester-abortions, and that's a wonderful thing.

The relevant thing is not the fact of the pregnancy. That's already happened. The only thing that should count is a woman's ability to choose whether a pregnancy becomes a baby. So many people seem to feel free to dictate these days, and they just don't get it.

Women don't have abortions on a whim. It's a surgical procedure that isn't the most pleasant thing in the world to go through, for one thing. Most intelligent women are all about not getting pregnant in the first place. The choice has to be there, though, and no one but the woman in question should have any influence on the decision she makes.

You say 'I have no doubt that RU486 has cut down on first-trimester-abortions, and that's a wonderful thing'.

Why is this a 'wonderful thing'? If the reason is so women can avoid a surgical procedure than I agree with you 100%.

BUT if the reason relates to that 'growth' inside the women's body than that is a pro-life point of view. In other words if RU486 is better because this 'growth' never occurs than that implies this 'growth' is something more than just a bunch of cells. Thus this 'growth' isn't irrelevant (but it doesn't appear I misunderstood what you were saying was irrelevant in your prior post).

And note I never pick on you! I'm just interested in your views since you are one wise gal!

Abortions are a surgical procedure that have a recovery time and, like I said before, that's never a pleasant thing. If we can avoid them by having a drug available for a substitute, great.

I'd be interested to see if anyone's done a financial analysis comparing RU486 prescriptions with abortions over time. I'm guessing that it also saves a great deal of money, particularly in the long run.

I've never had kids, I never wanted to, and I'm really glad that there's no possiblity of that happening any more. There are no regrets and there never will be. I spent well over 20 years on birth control pills with no ill effects and a couple of good ones with never a slip-up. It ain't rocket science, kids.

If I had gotten pregnant at any stage, I would have had an abortion in a cold minute. No question, no debate, that's what I would have done. It would have been my decision to make, just as it is for any other woman. No man, and I don't care who he is, can make that decision. It is between a woman and her physician that that is where it has to stay.

I agree with you here. My only point (which you still continue to ignore) is that women should at least admit they MIGHT be killing a human life.

I say SO WHAT. Really since the decision is up to the women and ONLY the women. But if we agree on that than people shouldn't have to pretend this surgical procedure is just like a wart removal. THAT just isn't true.

Just a side-note...RU-486 is not exactly a pleasant experience. While it is less invasive and more private than a surgical abortion, it is often extremely painful, results in vomiting etc. I certainly think its great to have another option to terminate an early pregnancy, but we shouldn't pretend that RU-486 is some sort of painless pill that you pop and then out the fetus comes out like magic without any mess. Plus sometimes you need a surgical abortion to finish things up...so we still need surgical abortions.

women who have or have had an abortion are aware that they "might potentially be killing a human life." They don't need you or anyone to tell them that. They're not stupid enough to not realize that without the abortion, in 9 months that "growth" would be a "baby" and in 18 years that "baby" would be a "person". We're women, not idiots.

Where the irrelevancy comes in is, the question of whether a 4 week fetus is a "person" or not is a matter of PERSONAL BELIEF. Yes, it's "human" - it's composed of human cells. If you did DNA analysis after removal of that fetus, you could determine whether it was GENETICALLY male or female. But a genetically female ball of 32 cells is not a woman, or even a little girl.

Many anti-abortion/pro-life people BELIEVE "life begins at conception." This is, for most of them, a RELIGIOUS construction. They believe that ball of 32 cells has a soul, and has had one from the time it was ONE cell composed of an egg and sperm mashed together. Since this cannot in any way be PROVEN (there is no genetic, chemical, or litmus test for "immortal soul") it falls under the realm of BELIEF.

And, here is the important part - laws such as this should not be decided on the basis of BELIEFS not shared by all people.

I am a woman. I have never had an abortion. Like Messy, I do just fine with contraceptives and being careful, and have for the entirity of my sexually active life. Now that I am married, I cannot forsee a circumstance under which I would need or want to have an abortion. However. I do not believe that life begins at conception. I do not believe that causing the failure to grow or removal of a ball of undifferentiated human cells that could eventually become a baby is equivalent to murder. And it is because of people like me that abortion should not be illegal - someone else's religious beliefs have no business governing my body.

After all, we have religious freedom in this country and have since day 1. If I can't dictate to you what religion you are, because you are free to choose, why can you dictate to me BASED ON your religion what I do with my body? That's a mighty interesting double standard, I have to say...

I don't care what you say, the embryo is not human. Everybody makes mistakes.

But God does not make mistakes; He creates every single human being, regardless of human error, with a purpose. The completion of chromosomes, which make up the unique DNA of a human being, occurs shortly after fertilization; thus an embryo is in fact human. RU-486 has the potential to terminate a developing human being and has appropriately been deemed another form of abortion.

if pro-life leaders would recognize that women have some role in their pregnancies (beyond that of breeding vessel), that pro-choice leaders would seize upon that as vindication of their point of view.

Women certainly are not breeding vessels, but any time a woman consents to having sex, she has intentionally chosen that role, as well, the role of fatherhood has also been chosen. Sex is delightful, but it is also a huge responsibility, and those not willing to accept the job of parenthood simply should not participate. If pro-choice leaders, and society in general, would acknowledge the woman’s responsibility to care for the human being that has been created (or at the very least, grant it life and place it up for adoption) their vindications would not be justified.

the question of whether a 4 week fetus is a "person" or not is a matter of PERSONAL BELIEF.

Life in regards to its significance might be relative, but life in regards to its existence is absolute. For example, I could close my eyes and believe all I want to that the computer sitting in front of my face does not exist, but that means nothing in absolute truth of the computer’s existence because if I stand up, step back, and sprint forward, I will absolutely crash into it, nonetheless. Therefore, refusal to accept the absolute truth is not only futile; it could be proven disastrously, as one might “have to contend with guilt and shame” (Keenan)

a genetically female ball of 32 cells is not a woman, or even a little girl.

Yes, but all life occurs in stages. If allowed, the female ball of DNA will develop into an infant, a toddler, a little girl, a teenager, a young adult woman, an older adult woman, and then an elderly adult woman. No stage of life is any more or less significant than the other, as each stage has potential leading into the next stage stage.

Since this (the soul of a fetus) cannot in any way be PROVEN… it falls under the realm of BELIEF.

It can not be scientifically proven that you and I have souls either; that does not mean that our lives are any less valuable.

laws such as this should not be decided on the basis of BELIEFS not shared by all people.

Yet in the absence of supreme or legislated morality, an injustice simply can not be determined. Slavery and segregation, for instance, were at one time considered moral by some, and so both prevailed for many, many years until the demand for absolute justice made them unlawful. In all actuality, liberty is not secure if it is only to be relatively determined by whoever has the most clout.

These are some thought provoking concepts, and unless there are any objections, I have included them in my own forum… “So long as abortions are legal, the debate will go on”

Where do you derive that interpretation of what the deity does and intends from? Unless of course you are the mouthpiece for the deity? Rather presumptuous of you isn't it?

Most of your argument is from Belief and I do not see how what you believe has any right to dictate what I and others believe. So keep your deity and beliefs out of medicine and medical issues that others believe in that you do not. Swallow your deities' cum for all I care to avoid needing the MAP or an abortion but there is no valid reason to restrict others from the use or choice to use them because of YOUR beliefs.

"But God does not make mistakes; He creates every single human being, regardless of human error, with a purpose."

So what purpose do miscarriages serve? Or birth defects, or early childhood deaths (like SIDS), for that matter?

Life in regards to its significance might be relative, but life in regards to its existence is absolute.

I believe I was pretty clear in my post that women who support freedom of choice are more than aware of the EXISTANCE of “life”, as you say, in early pregnancy. We are not idiots, we just disagree with you on the SIGNIFICANCE part of the equation. Though it’s more the potential of a person than a “stage of life”. A teenager will develop into a young woman without the assistance of anyone else’s body; a ball of DNA will not develop into a baby outside of a woman’s body.

In that sense, it is arguably NOT life, from the biological perspective. There is a great deal of debate in the scientific community about whether or not viruses are technically “alive”… they are made up of DNA or RNA, and they can grow and reproduce inside other organisms, but in the absence of a host they can do nothing. In a way, a ball of DNA with the potential to be a baby is the same. Remove the woman from the equation, and what we have is not “life”, but merely DNA. Depending upon your opinion, which is clearly subjective.

Again, I agree completely that the significance is relative. I do not believe a 4 week fetus is as significant as say, you. You disagree, as you are welcome to disagree. I feel each woman should get to choose what to do with a four week fetus based on her own personal opinion of the significance of it. Versus you, who want to impose your own opinion on everyone.

Slavery and segregation are IRRELEVANT to this argument. Saying two people of different races or origins are equal in rights, and should be considered so, and people who felt otherwise were wrong is NOTHING LIKE saying an undifferentiated ball of DNA that CANNOT SURVIVE OUTSIDE A WOMB is equivalent to a grown person. That is YOUR OPINION OR BELIEF that a ball of cells is as significant as a person. I BELIEVE differently.

“A fetus is as significant morally and legally as a grown person” is not an absolute, that is your opinion. You said yourself, the significance is relative.