Conversations From The Womb...

There are many aspects of abortion that are secret like the fact that stem cells are used for science and research. Abortion provides the stem cells. There are too many other hidden facts that may cause a stir.

Hi Leslie

I am pro choice. As you know pro lifers think that means we are pro abortion and that is so far from the truth.

Voted up and sharing.

This is one of those non-cut-and-dried situations where it can be quite hard to decide on the rightness of things. For me, I'd weigh the circumstances too. Wonderful share!

Wow! so many comments, and no wonder. this was a brilliant piece of writing, and I think that it should be shoved on the desk of everybody who thinks they have the right to say yeah or nay! I personally think that its nobody elses business what someone does, and to shove religion down their throats then they can go home without the problem makes me so mad! so this is great, and so true.

I would rather live a life full of challenges than to never live at all.

Poor circumstances, as awful as they are, does not doom one to a worthless life. Shall we also abort children who will be born with disabilities since they will be bitter and angry about their disability?

What about Bill Cosby? Or this list: http://www.burstingthebubble.com/storiesFamous.htm of people who grew up in less than ideal circumstances and went on to be very successful and give a lot to their world?

I am in your corner, ImKarn, sharing your perspective on this entire issue. It is all about responsibility, wisdom, insight and vision. As you've said, where are those who are fighting for the rights of fetuses after those fetuses have became living babies? They should rather use their energy to take care of WANTED babies born in unfortunate circumstances. Most people fighting for causes are like dogs barking at moving vehicles. Of course, there are exceptions, as there are exceptional happy and successful adults who were once unwanted and unloved babies.

Responsibility - How to be a RESPONSIBLE human being - should be a compulsory subject in school. (Dreaming of selling ice under an umbrella in the desert.)

I am pro-life, but I do agree with your views on children being born into a family that would only cause them harm and become poor role models. I think we need an educational program that really helps young teens to know the consequences of having sex, the current programs aren't working. But then, it should also be taught in the home - sex education that is. Good points made here, imkarn.

You prove to me, Wayne, how you "just know" that any zygote with half a chance of being abused if it goes to term wants to be destroyed?

ImKarn23: How come you're not chastising Wayne? He's been as insulting to me as I have to him, maybe more, and he started it all.

My arguments are fine; your arguments are crap, and so are his. What difference does it make at this point? You're not going to convince me and he isn't, nor am I going to convince either of you.

Oh, my, you read about as well as you write, Wayne. I said castrate rapists. That means do it AFTER they've been convicted. Capital Punishment deters the guy put to death, wouldn't you agree?

Your other comments are just as moronic: "Cut every mans nuts, cause they may all rape or tie a woman's tubes as they may be too poor, too ugly, too sexy." How is that any different than saying abort every woman's baby because there's a chance the baby may be unwanted and grow up abused?

The God in the bible gave man free will, but he also provided commandments by which we will be judged.

Me pissed? At you? Hardly. You're not worth my anger. I'm having the time of my life getting under your skin.

And, Wayne, I don't need an abortion.

If you’re referring to the eugenics program of the early 1900s, Wayne, I’d think you’d be right on board with that. As I understand, the U.S. was attempting to perfect the gene pool, with the outcome being a society without crime, mental illness, and homelessness. The idea was that if the degenerates of society were kept from having children, society’s problems would disappear.

Just think, Wayne, we could eliminate rape and child abuse, along with the need for abortions because everyone would want their children in this new Utopian society.

That program, by the way, has nothing to do with my comment that we castrate rapists; back in the early 20th century they were sterilizing largely immigrants, not criminals. And yes, today the government is paying out money as restitution.

Wayne, are you for capital punishment? Do you think it’s a deterrent to murder? Well, it deters the person they put down from killing again. Wouldn’t castration and sterilization be a deterrent to abortion? Makes about as much sense as your arguments.

I won’t even respond to the rest of your post because it makes no sense to me—reads as if it were written by a half-wit. In the mean time, look in your own mirror and stop meddling in my life.

Dear, dear Leslie; If I have been cause of a near religious experience upon your day, then it is I who should apologise. To drag the chains of such bondage to your door begs far too much from arogance. I would withdraw such unwarranted trespass, if I was not certain that such encroachment was about to meet its equal.

As long as I am here I should like to leave a postscript. Perhaps the single greatest infringment upon the right of any individual to choose from a day what is right within their heart for them, is to suffer the slings of those who stand within shadows to whisper in disapproval. An opposition to abortion should never simultaneously resort to the poison of judgement. I suspect that for many women, such decision is the most courageous decision they will ever make. The God I know, can not see it any less than I. The heart of a mother faced with such decision, should warrant from us all, a like compassion. In such shadowed light, I will continue to pray for both.

Hi again My Friend Who Is So Passionate, And Such A Lovely Character!

What a hoot! You really stirred them up with this! Would love to have coffee. Sounds so good.

@ Wayne Wilkins. I feel like we are hyjacking this post, and don't want to do that - but found your reply very interesting. I so believe there is more to life than what we are seeing - the experiences I have had with the spirit of my husband are amazing - and I won't comment here - because it is not my post. But you can check me out if you like. My moniker Craiglyn is a combination of my husband Craig's name and my name Lynda. Much to talk about and/or discuss. : )

Try this on for size. If we are daring to go into this hot topic with all of our own thoughts and opinions, here's another one. Since the death of my husband I have done all kinds of research into the spiritual world. One of the things I have seen over and over and over again is "that we are all spirit first, and then we come into a physical body."

Also "that we plan our life before we come here - to experience and learn life's lessons." Dare I to say something else that I have read and that is that "we choose our parents." Not only that, "we know that we may not actually be born - 'this time' - but that we may just want the experience of being in the womb - knowing full well that we will not be born - 'this time'."

It is well known that psychics have shown that in some fetuses who have not made it through full pregnancy, oftentimes their spirit has come into the fetus of a second pregnancy." WHAT IF - all of this was chosen by ourselves before we came here. What would all this arguing be about???

Just another view, fromwhere I sit!

I believe in prevention, too, and that includes sterilization. It would save a lot of grief. But I don't believe anyone of us can "Just know that these zygotes would not wish to be born." How can anyone know what anyone else thinks or wishes, especially when they believe they're not a life anyway?

On the other end of the spectrum: Yes, I believe that if a person has a living will, expressing that they don't wish to be kept alive by machine, then, yes, they should be allowed to die. It is THEIR CHOICE. Unlike the arguments here that make the choice for the zygote.

No, I don't know when life begins, I've already stated as much. The government doesn't either. They simply made a ruling. Since no can know at what point we become "alive," I think it best to err on the side of caution.

Even if a zygote isn't "alive," by destroying it, you eradicate any chance it has to become a life. How is that any different than someone walking into a school with a gun and shooting a roomful of first graders? You take from them any chance to achieve maturity.

I'm sure there are more than "three" babies that ended up "wanted" by their parents after they initially considered abortion because they didn't want them. Just as I'm certain there aren't "zillions" born to abusive families.

great article .. women, get educated! Don't repeat the pattern .. break the pattern

Jconrad... no I didn't mean abortions when I said... if you are against spending your tax $ on christian things... I was referring to the things Jesus supported... caring for the poor, the sick, the lame... and especially the children... I believe people have the right to be pro-choice or as they call it pro-life, but I also believe that if they are done with the child and its mother once the child is born... if they use their vote to elect folks who want to dismantle head start, or school lunches or as Mrs Romney said get rid of the Department of Education... then these children cease to be 'souls' worth saving... I believe that is un-Christian. I believe in providing free birth control to poor people because birth control prevents pregnancy... no pregnancy no abortion. I believe in sex education not 'Abstinence' never worked in any age... if kids understand how the body works... maybe a fear of pregnancy will work better than a fear of God... cause that sure isn't keeping religious kids from getting pregnant. Lets really be Pro-LIFE like Jesus... lets work to raise up the downtrodden ... Those who are done with the care, health and security of the child once born are not pro life they are just pro Birth. The Real Pro Lifers want every child born to have an equal opportunity.

I am a firm believer in a woman's right to choose. Preferably i would hope for the need not to exist. We have a morning after pill that expells any substance pertaining to a cell. It is used all over the world except in the USA, yet we sell male enhancement pills that produce a sperm that invades an uninvited territory. After working in the field of nursing, i have seen the many ways women have attempted self-abortion, coat hangers, pencils, laxatives, etc.. I have also witnessed the abuse of babies who were born to women and men who did not want them. It is time for us to realize that all women and men are not meant to have children. For those who preach it is a sin, let them be the first to come forward and claim a child who suffered from fetal ingestation abuse. It is not a pretty picture, although a beautiful wanted baby is the most beautiful gift anyone could recieve. Blessings Leslie...

There are many truths, mine and yours, and those in between. I'm not force-feeding anyone my opinions, merely debating.

I'm not the only one in this string who has taken to personal attacks.

Good day to you.

A wide angle lens fails to take in the nuances of what's morally right. Just because the law allows for something doesn't make it morally right.

I've known plenty of woman who considered abortion, but, when the baby was born and they held that tiny life in their arms, they were glad that they didn't. I've known other women who were sorry and scarred for life for aborting a life, and regretted it forever.

To claim that an unwanted baby, at conception, is reason to end that potential life when there is a likelihood that that life will be loved and cherished is morally wrong. Not all unwanted babies end up abused and unloved.

This isn't an issue of right-wrong, yes-no, true-false. One can't lump this as all right or all yes.

I'm proud to try to live my life as a Christian, and as a smart American who listens to most smart opinions, I understand the stupidity of those who accuse others of stupidity in their failed efforts to further their own argument with logic.

I am pro choice, I feel it is important to the health of the woman to be able to make the choice. I feel it would be taking us back to the dark ages it we force our women to go back to the back alleys or mexico to have unlicensed and unsafe medical procedures (pardon the use of our women, since no one is anyones property.) It is embarrasing to look back to this time that was not very long ago, when womans health and choice was up to the men who owned her.

Public health policy is there for the PUBLIC health not to enforce morality (which is relative) or try to fix something that will always be an issue facing woman, (NEVER a man). Jamie

A powerful piece of work, and what a controversial subject to tackle! Leslie Silverman puts it out there with an unmatched zeal and courageous conviction that is seldom found in journalism. Whether you agree or disagree with her position, one has to admire her crafty literary skill and the way she delivers it! Kudos!

Wayne: you're unable to further your argument with facts so you attack me, call my view myopic, tell me I've been brainwashed. Your arguments leave your point MOOT (not mute).

I've looked at the whole picture, Wayne, and I've admitted that this issue is not black and white, that abortion, in SOME cases might be the best choice.

Your opinion that a wide angle lens be used is a poor analogy, because what you're saying is that abortion can be used by any woman no matter how she got pregnant. Forget to take her birth control pill? Whoops. Get an abortion. A teen girl gets drunk at a party and ends up pregnant? Whoops. Get an abortion. Abortion allows anyone and everyone to avoid taking responsibility for their life.

I'm against abortion as a means of birth control. I'm against people like you, who can't spell or construct sensible sentences to further their point of view, who resort to personal attacks, and I'm against the rationale you put forth: that we are doing the humane thing, that we are protecting an unwanted child from abuse by destroying it and everything it can become. You continue to avoid my other point: When do we resort to the death penalty for the homeless on the chance that they might become criminal?

I understand what unwanted means. Not everyone who doesn't want their child is going to abuse them or leave them in a dumpster. Many unwanted children grow up to lead productive lives and become wonderful parents. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE THAT NONE OF THEM GETS THAT CHANCE?

I'm finished debating with you, Wayne. At some point, I become the bigger fool for arguing with a fool.

Agreed, Deborah; both abortion and child abuse is wrong. So why do those who support choice feel that two wrongs make a right? They hide behind the facade of human rights while at the same time denying the unborn the very rights they defend. And then justify it by claiming a zygote is not really a life. Maybe it's not; but abortion robs it of any chance at becoming a life.

I wonder if the pro-choicers would still feel that way if there were some way to create a digital program to show the development of the zygote into a fetus and, eventually, a newborn, a sort of time-lapse photography.

I'm wise enough to understand that this not a black and white issue. There are instances when abortion might be the only choice; if, for instance, the mother's life is at stake should she carry to term, or incest, or even rape. But to justify abortion here as humane, as a way to protect an unborn child from potential abuse, is unfathomable to me.

Such a daring article for a hub and I applaud you. I had such a conversation with a dear cousin not long ago, and it was insisted to me that, even if someone is raped, they "should" go ahead and have this child and give it up for adoption. No thought at all about whether or not this child could be born with a substance abuse problem, or even a thought for the mother's mental stability in such a situation. I am against abortion as a means of birth control; but I am "pro choice" when it comes to the individual circumstances. Education for birth control would be a good thing, first and foremost.

Powerful,strong.,gripping and spot on Leslie my friend.

Another amazing gem which leaves much food for thought and gets straight to the point.

I vote up, across and share to FB pages and all around.

Eddy.

Jon you are so right Christ did believe in the church He was the founder .. Abortion is wrong to me.. but abusing innocent children is wrong too. there is so much wrong in this world.... We need the Lord to help us..

Jeesh, Wayne. No one in this string claims that a child should ever be abused. But who are you to speak for a zygote, going so far as to claim that, if they knew what was in store for them, they'd WANT to be aborted? That's a sick argument for abortion.

Birth control, yes, I'm in favor of that; but abortion as a means of birth control, no. That's not a human right. If it were, then you would be forced to consider the rights of the unborn. Claiming it's not a life until it draw its first breath, or only after the first trimester, is a weak argument. When the sperm fertilizes the egg, life results. And even if you don't believe that, abortion prohibits the process of life, it stops that zygote from, to coin a phrase, being all that it can be.

Isn't it strange that I must sign a legal document authorizing someone to make medical decisions for me in the event I'm incapacitated, but a woman is free to make a decision for an unborn child, without its consent? Leave out the religious aspects if you must, but can you honestly claim that there isn't something immoral about that?

And by the way, Christ did, too, believe in the church. He was, after all, it's founder. He referred to it as his bride.

Wayne: I’m against capital punishment. I’m against sending young men into battle to die. I’m against child abuse in any fashion, including molestation. Therefore, by your definition, I AM pro-life.

I am NOT brainwashed and the only thing you’re right about is that you are NOT politically correct in calling me that. I don’t believe in organized religion; that doesn’t mean I can’t believe in SOME of the teachings in the bible. The world would be a far better place in which to live if more people read the book.

You write that we should “Put all your energy into making sure that there are NO UNWANTED babies born!” Isn’t that what I’ve been saying in my comments in this string? Psych tests for those who were abused as children to see if they’re fit to bring new life into the world, castration for rapists and child molesters, tying the tubes of drug addled women.

I wasn’t a planned baby, nor was my sister. I could argue that we were both unwanted children. Maybe you’d argue that my parents should’ve terminated our lives. Most babies are unplanned. Should we terminate all of them on the chance that they’ll be abused once they come into the world? Isn’t that a great plan? It would help control the world’s population and save the planet’s resources at the same time.

Your talk about freedom of choice while you advocate taking the freedom of choosing to live from a zygote—that’s rich. One thing you conveniently failed to speak to is, if we legalize abortion to protect children from abuse and being born into poverty, why don’t we legalize the death penalty for the homeless because they’re a drain on society and are a risk to turn to a life of crime in order to survive?

You resort to name calling and your arguments lose any power, Wayne, because I can’t respect anyone who attacks my beliefs and tells me I’m brainwashed. Nor am I a hypocrite. For all you know, I’m a vegan.

Your rant against religion is pathetic. I’ve read the bible, cover to cover. Have you? Christ tore up the temple not because he was against religion—he overturned the tables because they’d turned his father’s house into a market. I understand what the bible is, and it’s not a perfect document. Even if it was originally written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit, as many claim, it’s been translated many time into many languages. Doesn’t mean that the lessons it contains aren’t good lessons.

You think you blew my mind by putting forth that God is not a Christian? Guess again. I’m way ahead of you. Christianity was created by man.

You’re a moron for asking, “Where was God when Sandy killed innocent men, women and children?” You might as well ask, “Why does God allow suffering in the world?” “Why does God allow innocent children to be born to crack-whores?” “Why does he allow abortions?” If there is suffering in the world, it’s because WE allow it.

I left comments in this string, as I was invited to do so. I’ve put forth opinions with which others have agreed, and others have disagreed. I haven’t attacked anyone’s opinion or beliefs, as you have mine. We still have freedom of expression in this country. My mind is open; it’s yours that is closed. Your half-baked rant is proof of that.

Most interesting, I don't believe in abortion, falling pregnant is a decision one has to make on their own not be so helpless and decide later if they want to keep the infant or not. Any drug addict mother should think about her situation before falling pregnant.

Superb article, as always my friend. Guns, rape, crime, lousy parenting and abortion are the "hot topic" issues you so passionately strike out at and you do it so well.

People become so entrenched and rigid in their thinking. By and large it is men who are the catalysts with a pro life agenda and are fervently pushing for a reversal of Roe v Wade. Their "my way or the highway" attitude is so frustrating for them when they can't get their own way.

Although I understand some are against abortion, what I don't get is why they feel the need to impose their will against the female populace. You are correct...it all comes down to control and suppression of women's rights.

Why don't you fillies understand? Men finally let you vote and drive and KABOOM, now you have the audacity - the unmitigated gall - to want control over your bodies too! Geez, you were meant to be barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen, bedroom, laundry room, donning a kerchief while you hang garments on a clothesline, raise a litter of kids and dang it, make sure dinner is on the table for the kings when they arrive home. After all, the guys are tired when they get home from scratching out a living so you women folk have a roof over your heads and a little "pin money." What more could you gals possibly want?

Imkarn, another powerful, and very potent write. Yes it would be so wonderful if every child was wanted and loved, if the planet had unlimited resources and we lived in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we have to live in the real world, where we must make the hard decisions. Even in nature a mother bird would throw a fledgling out of the nest so that the stronger will have a better chance of survival. Many women will sadly experience a spontaneous abortion within the first 20 weeks of gestation, most commonly due to chromosomal abnormalities in the first trimester. Although this can be devastating sad, sometime it is nature telling us something is wrong. I'm not saying we should emulate the birds or abort perfectly healthy fetuses, but every woman should have the right to choose, I don't like the idea of abortions, but I support a woman's right to choose what happens to her body.

Imkarn, much Kudos to you, you do not shy away from the hard ones. Great job.

Wow, this is so powerful and I love the way you write. I'm sure this hub will have many comments. It's about a subject people have different opinions on. I could not agree more with you. Debbie, Bill, Leslie ... you are wonderful people!

mother's life

I don't believe in abortion either, but there are exceptions to the rule such as cases like the ones you have mentioned or when the mother's live is in danger. voted up!

Written in your typical style (which I like). I feel somewhat a coward, in my opinion. I feel this should be entirely a female matter.

HLPhoenix: I am SO pro birth control, but not by way of abortion.

I'm not sure to what you refer by "having your tax dollars do the Christian thing." Do you mean that abortion is a Christian thing, if it saves a baby from being born to a drug-addled mother or an abusive father?

Please exclude the last 3 lines of my comment above... I didn't get the edit finished in time... what I meant to say....

The Catholic Bible includes different sections of the original Hebrew Bible than the Protestants do. They both have chosen which of the original texts best support their view. There have been literally thousands of Bible Translations and here in America there are literally thousands of different 'Christian' and even a few different Catholic traditions/beliefs.

It is wonderful to have Faith, it does amazing things... and some of the Faithful are truely Christ like. But to hold your religion up as an excuse to fight to take away a 'Right' from anyone, when 'God's Word' nowhere supports such a determination...? Remember Jesus who wanted the poor and the lame and the children especially to be cared for... if you are against having your tax dollars do the Christian thing... then you really have no right to consider yourself Pro-Life, cause Jesus certainly wouldn't consider you so. You are just Pro-Birth.

A difficult topic presented from a unique viewpoint. I think the point being made in the comments has more to do with Right to Birth rather than Right to Life.

I know many people who consider themselves Pro-Life who are not only pro-birth but are truely Pro-life... their actions and votes show that... and those people are religious too.

However, if one is against birth control, votes for those who want to close the Department of Education, defund HeadStart, defund Free Lunches for poor kids... anti Health Care for all children... and their parents, think Rape is not such a big deal... whether perpetrated by a parent, relative, stranger or religious leader, I could go on. Those people are Absolutely Not Pro-Life, I don't care what religion they profess to be.

I personally am right now pro-choice... it would save many more 'lives' if those who think they are pro-life were FOR birth control. The Government funded a study where free birth control of all types was made available in several poor neighborhoods over a period I believe of 3 years... abortions went down 75%. Because the girls and women who Chose birthcontrol Didn't get pregnant.

As for the Palms quoted... these are poems written by people they are not written by God. In the Hebrew Bible... there are 4 sections... The first 12 books being the Laws of God. That is the Torah. The Psalms are beautiful poems written by human beings some praising women, sex and in the passage quoted... this persons 'feelings' of whabout God and the unborn child.

The Old Testiment purports to be a literal translation of the Hebrew Bible... which was written by or dictated by or inspired by God... one presumes 'God' doesn't make mistakes.

Having spent years reading the history of Christianity... I can tell you that the Hebrew Bible was Canonized (meaning 'no more' changes...) literally much more than 1000 years before the Catholics finally Canonized (no more changes) which they didn't do until after the Protestants broke away... The King James Bible was written or published or started in 1611...

Catholics include ... but most of the

A Right to Life includes a life of at least enough to eat, some place to live, some kind of health care, and an abuse free if not loving family.

Well, hard to think what to say about this! I think most of us feel quite desperate when we see how fractured families are, and the sad lives that many children have to bear. I frequently mourn the fact that all children do not have the same privilege and advantage in life. Perhaps the real sadness is that society is moving more and more towards an attitude that anything goes, and there seems to be no feeling of shame when children are not treated properly. I know that my feelings will not change any of that. The only thing I can do is try to help children, by encouragement and teaching. My background is in early childhood education. I believe education is the key, and support to families is also crucial. The child who is disliked and punished becomes the parent who cannot give anything to a child. Very sad.

So you presume to know more than God?

The Bible makes it clear that David and Jeremiah were human and known to God while they were in the womb, PRIOR to being born:

“For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, the days fashioned for me, when as yet there were none of them (Psalm 139:13-16, NKJV).

Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying:

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;

Before you were born I sanctified you;

I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

In the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament), a term translated about 26 times as infant(s) or child or little one is the Hebrew word 'owlel. That word is used for unborn infants in Job 3:16; hence, God considers unborn infants to be living human beings—children. We don't, and that makes us right?

We’re arrogant in presuming we know more than God simply because we understand how life is created, even though we haven’t a clue as to how the universe was created or why we are here. But we arbitrarily assign a number to WHEN life starts.

THAT’s arrogance.

It occurred to me to ask why we don't neuter abusive men or castrate rapists. Why don't we tie the tubes of drug addicted women? Wouldn't that be infinitely more humane? But because they have rights, and have advocates for those rights, we leave them be, to commit the very atrocities you seek to prevent through abortion?

In this string we arbitrarily assume the right to abort a zygote on the presumption that it is not a life and therefore does not deserve the same rights as the sick individuals listed above? In my opinion, their rights should be protected above all others for the simple fact that we can't know who they may become and what greatness they might contribute to society.

Hello Leslie. Perhaps much of the misunderstanding reserved for us of faith comes not from what we believe but not knowing why we believe what we believe. I do not wish to impose my faith nor my religion upon those who have chosen another journey, however, it is important that you know why so many of faith believe as we do.

"For you created my inmost being, you knit me together in my mothers womb, I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made, my frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. You saw my unformed body; All of my days were written in your book before one of them came to be." Psalm 139

For those of faith how can abortion not have something to do with religion? The God they profess, the God they follow says that we are to speak for the defenseless and He says that the Zycote, is known by Him, long before he or she is birthed, that He and He alone has written their days in the book of life. This isn't a statement of right or wrong for all the world. It is a statement of right or wrong for those of faith. If the greatness of this country evolved from the ashes of religious persecution, then is it not still a country where those of faith are free to practice their faith, to believe in its tennants without ridicule from those who choose another way? If I am to defend your right to your way, are you not to defend my right to my way and in doing so, do we not preserve the hope of civilization. If so, can we understand one another without agreeing with one another. I seek no power or control from religion in order to preside over the life of any individual. Does my disagreement in this issue seek your agreement or simply your understanding. Does my opinion threaten the credibility of those who differ or does it simply state that I exercise, as does the woman choosing abortion, the right to choose one position or the other.

I choose mine and it is faithful to the God I choose to follow. You choose yours and it is faithful to the tennants which direct your life. I do not suppose that I am right or that you are wrong. I respect the thought process which has led you to believe as you do. It is persuasive, it is logical and it is lucid. I am dissapointed that we of faith are seen in such a diminishing light for adhering to our convictions. If I have failed to honor your conviction, your right to express it or have in any way provided ridicule in response to your effort to present a noble case for your opinion, then I apologise.

It is my hope, that such friendship is never contingent upon the promise of agreement, rather that it rely in the mutual respect of thinker to thinker, of writer to writer and between hearts comitted to hearing one another.

Why don't we neuter abusive men, castrate rapists, tie the tubes of women addicted to drugs? Wouldn't THOSE actions be more humane than abortion?

To further my comments above: Wouldn't it be easier to mandate psychological tests to someone who comes from an abusive home to determine their frame of mind BEFORE they conceive a child?

We don't do that because it's their constitutional right to have a child? To pay it forward the abuse to their own children? But we conveniently tell ourselves it's okay to terminate a potential life and that's more humane? I don't think so.

ImKarn23: There are many who stand up for the rights of the abused. Sadly, they are overworked and underfunded.

Who can say when life begins? You, because the government writes a law that says "not before the second trimester?" When does our spirit take its seat within us? At the moment we first draw breath? When we first become self-aware? Or at the moment of conception? Until you or someone else can tell me, with conviction and proof, when a life becomes a life, I'll hold to my belief that it is not our place to decide for another, based on probability, that they will be born into a life of suffering. Whether or not it is a life, you would prevent that seed from taking root, from becoming a life, and no one has that right, not even with your attempted justification as being the humane thing to do.

I come from a family in which my father failed to nurture me in many ways, and he is perhaps accountable for some of the poor choices I've made in my life; but I am still responsible for those choices. I struggle daily; but I'm grateful for my life, and I have much for which to be thankful. I'm perhaps most thankful that my parents didn't choose to eradicate my potential.

One must have a permit to own a gun, a license to drive a car, even a license to wed, but anyone can have a child. Why not require classes and license in order to bring a life into the world? Because it's considered our constitutional right to have children in pursuit of the American Dream. But we can mandate that a zygote can be terminated before it can achieve maturity? How do you balance that?

As others have stated in this string, many children rise above the station of life to which they were born to lead productive lives, to contribute to society, to become better human beings than are those who gave them life. So again, WHO ARE WE to make that decision for them? It's considered humane to put our pets down when they become ill; but we keep a human life alive when there is not hope for quality of life. Sometimes the greatest act of love is to let someone go. But it is not the greatest act of love, or compassion, to prevent a life.

And I ask again: Where does this stop? At what point do we begin executing the homeless and those at poverty levels, because they are a drain on society, because of the possibility that they MIGHT commit a crime, steal food or money in order to survive?

Wayne: Read Arb's comments above. I rest my case: There are as many cases where children find homes with loving parents, and rise above the status of their birth mothers. It is not up to US to decide for them, to play judge and jury, and God, thereby depriving from them the chance to become something better.

Your argument that I eat an egg before it can become a chick is at best weak, at worst, pathetic. There is no comparison. If that is your best argument, then I pity those who side with you.

To write a piece of fiction, from the perspective of a zygote pleading for its host-mother to take its life, is not only deplorable, but irresponsible.

God, Leslie, I was worried. I read the first ten comments and there was no vile disagreements. I'm glad I got here late so I could read the comments that followed.

I love Debbie! She doesn't agree, so she respectively says that and then tells you how much she respects you as a human being. Why is that so difficult? Leslie, I love you....Debbie, I love you. Perfect!

Well Leslie, I admire your creativity and the mind which proposes such passion without compromising the responsibility to think, however, on this particular issue I will defend my opposition to abortion in general. I would preface my comment by stating that I remain pro choice, but I do so, both for the mother and the unborn child. What ever consequences or rewards which come to settle upon the mother are hers and hers alone and I would support no law which might infringe upon her right to do so.

Having said so much, because the unborn can not speak for themselves, those who can must take some responsibility to speak on their behalf. I can not presume whether they might wish to live or to die because of presupposed hardships any more than I can presume what those with out mental capacity might choose, or those who sleep eight in a room or those by virtue of geography are born in the midst of civil war, famine or any host of dreaded circumstance.

Given the premise of your hub at first glance, I might well agree with its inherent conclusion and side with mothers who then are guilty of simply sparing the eventuality of a coming despair upon their unborn child. In doing so however, how do I confront the mother of a two year old who measures what lies ahead and makes a similar decision to spare her child the probability of coming despair. What of mothers who because of long and present famine see little future for their children or the mother who measures the circumstances of her life and cries herself to sleep at night because she faces the gloom of her child’s tomorrow?

I wrote a hub entitled “The story of Zoe”. Her mother was my great niece. Bi racial, lesbian, drug addicted and homeless. She traded sex for drugs and gave birth to Zoe. When I picked Zoe up from the hospital, (1 day old) her mother was shackled to the bed with a sheriff in her room. We brought her home and my daughter adopted her last year. She is a wanted child, just not by her birth mother. She is healthy, vibrant, exceptionally bright and loved to pieces. There are millions of such stories. There are millions which end as you have alluded too. How do I discern which is which, who of them will rise as miracle or who of them will whither in despair. Until I know, I speak gently and tenderly on their behalf.

I understand that, ImKarn23. I should've written, with abortion legalized, why shouldn't we legalize the death penalty for those at the poverty level? If we do that, where does it end?

BTW, are you a proponent of the death penalty?

You make a wonderful point, Sam, that if we legitimize abortion, why shouldn't we legitimize the death penalty for those at the poverty level, for being a drain on society.

Wayne: to take a life to protect them from a potential life of poverty and abuse, in my opinion, is morally wrong.

By this same faulty argument, it would be legitimate to kill human beings both before and after birth. This is not an argument for abortion, but an argument against poverty and rough situations.

What you are saying is that based on what the child may or may not be, the mother may elect to kill or spare the baby. This will not persuade anyone who is anti-aprtion, as the issues surrounding abortion concern whether or not the embryo is alive. This is an excuse for murder, not a pro-life stance.

Wayne: So your argument is that we're really doing these unborn lives a favor as justification for murder? That helps you sleep at night?

All I'm saying is that this is a very complex issue; but you argue that we should make it simple by destroying the unborn, who have no one to advocate for their right to life, no matter the circumstances. That's cold.

Wow! Amazing hub. You make some very valid and hard hitting points. It was powerful, right on point and very interesting. Voted up and sharing.

Ah, but, Wayne, who are we to make that determination for another? Are there not alternatives, such as adoption? If Joseph had Mary abort her child, where would we be today? Perhaps in more dire straights.