Political Crossfire Forums

[Plodder]

I know Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. He will swing by my school now and then. during this time anyone including me can talk to him. He is pro life and very much so. he also like to talk about the other justices but I wont reapeat what I have heard him say. I must say he has a great sense of humor too. He is willing to overtuen a Roe type case.

Samuel Alito: even though he has ruled in favor of Roe on a few cases, he has a strategy for eliminating it that involves a progressive destruction of it. He is probably in favor of overturning it. I can say this with reasonable ceatainty by the way he doged questions at the hearings.

Stephen Breyer:Breyer most frequently sides with Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, generally acknowledged as being the "liberal" wing of the court. He has consistently voted in favor of abortion.

Antonin Scalia: definatly the most intelligent person on this court. He is 100% in favor of overturning Roe. anyone who knows anything about Scalia know this.

John Roberts: Tricky, tricky tricky. he may or may not side with the right on this. Howver if I were a betting man, he would. I base this on his personal belifs and the way he was raised and taught the law.

Anthony Kennedy: The swing vote. He is very volatile and will be the replcement for Sandra Day- Oconnor when it comes to swing votes. He is left of center usually but: taken from Wikipedia "In 1992, Kennedy joined O'Connor and David Souter to form the troika who delivered the plurality opinion in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which re-affirmed in principle (though not in many details) the Roe v. Wade decision recognizing the right to abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Kennedy initially voted to uphold the restrictions on abortion at issue but switched his vote during the consideration of Casey). The plurality opinion, signed jointly by three justices appointed by the pro-life presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, ignited a firestorm of criticism from conservatives. Kennedy, however, dissented in 2000's Stenberg v. Carhart, which struck down laws criminalizing partial-birth abortion. It was widely rumored that both Anthony Kennedy and David Souter originally planned on voting to Overturn Roe v. Wade but changed their minds in the eleventh hour after discovering that O'Connor would not."


So there you have it kiddies. a brief review on the candidates of our "great" court.

[alclarkey]

We have 4 justices who probably would vote to overturn it, and we might have a 5th coming up in June, as there are rumors that Breyer told President Bush he would be resigning then. And then of course theres Ginsburg who will probably pass away soon-- she's not in the greatest of health.

[Plodder]

with a voice like that... no kidding on ginsburg.

[Shady]

Probably. Depends on Precedent vs. Political affiliation.

[Plodder]

This just in: Possible option by the government before 2008.

If one of the following justices retire (Stevens, Sueter, Breyer), Bush has the option to nominate an extrme righwing judge. The dems would lose barely and filibuster, The Reps would get rid of the closure rule and vote straight for the nominee. This would place a majority of rightwing judges on the bench thus making it a ripe time to hear an abortion case such as SD new laws regarding it. Roe could be overtured and the new precedent would be the pro life one not the pro death one.

[alclarkey]

Actually I think we'll see a couple of resignations before Bush leaves office. And I don't think the Republicans will lose any seats, in fact I'm confident that they will gain seats. In short, not only will Roe-V-Wade be overturned, but a whole host of other constitutional wrongs will be righted (no pun intended).

[steen]

Plodder wrote: If one of the following justices retire (Stevens, Sueter, Breyer), Bush has the option to nominate an extrme righwing judge. I am pleased that you admit that the anti-choice judges are extreme rightwingers, a pack of fascists.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: I am pleased that you admit that the anti-choice judges are extreme rightwingers, a pack of fascists Irellevent, explain how we are anti choice when all we want is for unborn humans to have the right to live. Explain how we are anti choice when we believe women have the right to choose to engage in sexual reproduction or not. Simple answer? You cant. You can just flame us with your troll response and call everything a lie and not prove why or how its a lie.

[Izzibeth]

regardless of opinions on this thread... if Roe v. Wade is overturned throughout the country there will be an uprising, i am sure of it. and hopefully that uprising will be loud enough to have it turned back. the pro-choice people have not said enough because they have been pretty confident that Roe v. Wade would be fine. once they realize that it is under attack, it is my own personal hope that they will organize better. the anti-choice voice has been louder so it has been heard. pro-choice has been complacent.

even if Roe v. Wade is overturned i have a feeling (maybe more of a hope) that it will not last long. but until then i think the pro-choice voice will continue to remain quiet in the back room while the anti-choice voice screams out.

i am not saying that it is wrong or bad that the anti-choice have had a louder voice. this is the way legislation and laws should be passed. by the voices of the people. so it's good that there has been much debate over the issue and that protests have been staged. i just hope the side i am on jumps on the bandwagon and wins another round. (since i believe this issue will most likely never fully be resolved) ^_^ just like you do.

[Snarf]

Roe will continue to be eaten away at one bit at a time, as it has been for 20 years. As for overturning it directly, that would cause a massive political realignment that the justices are well aware of, and fear. Even if Roe went down, abortion would be legal in most of the US as those laws are still on the books. The other states would soon follow and there would be very few anti-abortion states left as those that outlawed it would find their young women leaving very quickly after turning 18, or at the very least crossing their borders to get legal abortions as was common before Roe. Not having legal abortion may be an invitation to conservative Christians and Catholics, but the rest of the country is not interested in having one child after another or playing calendar games with their sex lives.

Roe, like Griswald and Brown, is too well established to be taken on directly. South Dakota’s mistake here will be evident shortly as the SC turns a deaf ear and ignores their direct and misguided challenge. Their anti-choice law is DOA…

[AllAmericanMan]

Pro life people are not anti choice they are pro choice. We are for the choice people have to engage in sexual reproduction. We are for giving the child inside the mother a chance at life they had no choice in starting.

Pro choice people are Pro death and anti choice. You are against giving the unborn child a chance to live and you disregard the mothers choice to create that life in the first place.

[Izzibeth]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Pro life people are not anti choice they are pro choice. We are for the choice people have to engage in sexual reproduction. We are for giving the child inside the mother a chance at life they had no choice in starting.

Pro choice people are Pro death and anti choice. You are against giving the unborn child a chance to live and you disregard the mothers choice to create that life in the first place.

you can twist the words however you would like but the fact of the matter is that in the issue of ABORTION.

pro-life means you believe the potential child should be allowed to live regardless of the choice of the mother. you are against giving the mother a choice AFTER she becomes pregnant to continue or abort the pregnancy. you are anti-choice. meaning... anti-giving the mother a choice AFTER she has become pregnant. she may want to keep the baby or she may not want to keep the baby. your position is that if she becomes pregnant she should not be given that CHOICE.

pro-choice means nothing more than that. you believe the mother has the right to decide what HER choice will be in the matter. it does not mean that you want a woman to discard a pregnancy or abort a potential human life. it means you have resigned to the fact that it is her choice. you recognize that the potential human being.. the block of cells forming inside of her.. does not have a choice. therefore, the one who does must come first. it is illogical to make a universal choice for something that cannot make choices when another human life which CAN make choices is present. you are not against giving the unborn potential child a chance to live. you are simply leaving that chance and choice up to the female who will be carrying it inside of her for the next 10 months. she may choose to keep the baby or she may choose to abort it. your position is that if she becomes pregnant she is given the CHOICE.

those who believe the woman has no choice in the matter are "pro-life" and those who believe she does are "pro-choice". calling pro-choicers "pro-death" and pro-lifers "pro-choice" (of the potential child) is doing nothing more than trying to demonize or demoralize those with a different view-point than you. something you will notice pro-choicers generally do not try to do to pro-lifers/anti-choicers. pro-choicers are not "pro-death". abortion (done before the 3 month cut-off point - in MY opinion and for reasons i have stated in other threads-) is not murder as you are not killing a human being. a potential human being, yes. but at the point in which you abort it is simply a developing block of cells. you can argue all you want that people call it a block of forming cells to make themselves feel better but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a block of forming cells which given time will form into a fully functioning (hopefully) human being. it, however, is not that human being yet.

twisting it around can be done by both sides in order to better argue their point. but that is what "pro-life" and "pro-choice" essentially mean in the ABORTION challenge.

[LostSoul3412]

Izzibeth wrote: AllAmericanMan wrote: Pro life people are not anti choice they are pro choice. We are for the choice people have to engage in sexual reproduction. We are for giving the child inside the mother a chance at life they had no choice in starting.

Pro choice people are Pro death and anti choice. You are against giving the unborn child a chance to live and you disregard the mothers choice to create that life in the first place.

you can twist the words however you would like but the fact of the matter is that in the issue of ABORTION.

pro-life means you believe the potential child should be allowed to live regardless of the choice of the mother. you are against giving the mother a choice AFTER she becomes pregnant to continue or abort the pregnancy. you are anti-choice. meaning... anti-giving the mother a choice AFTER she has become pregnant. she may want to keep the baby or she may not want to keep the baby. your position is that if she becomes pregnant she should not be given that CHOICE.

pro-choice means nothing more than that. you believe the mother has the right to decide what HER choice will be in the matter. it does not mean that you want a woman to discard a pregnancy or abort a potential human life. it means you have resigned to the fact that it is her choice. you recognize that the potential human being.. the block of cells forming inside of her.. does not have a choice. therefore, the one who does must come first. it is illogical to make a universal choice for something that cannot make choices when another human life which CAN make choices is present. you are not against giving the unborn potential child a chance to live. you are simply leaving that chance and choice up to the female who will be carrying it inside of her for the next 10 months. she may choose to keep the baby or she may choose to abort it. your position is that if she becomes pregnant she is given the CHOICE.

those who believe the woman has no choice in the matter are "pro-life" and those who believe she does are "pro-choice". calling pro-choicers "pro-death" and pro-lifers "pro-choice" (of the potential child) is doing nothing more than trying to demonize or demoralize those with a different view-point than you. something you will notice pro-choicers generally do not try to do to pro-lifers/anti-choicers. pro-choicers are not "pro-death". abortion (done before the 3 month cut-off point - in MY opinion and for reasons i have stated in other threads-) is not murder as you are not killing a human being. a potential human being, yes. but at the point in which you abort it is simply a developing block of cells. you can argue all you want that people call it a block of forming cells to make themselves feel better but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a block of forming cells which given time will form into a fully functioning (hopefully) human being. it, however, is not that human being yet.

twisting it around can be done by both sides in order to better argue their point. but that is what "pro-life" and "pro-choice" essentially mean in the ABORTION challenge.

:tu:

This is the issue of abortion, not the "life" of the embryo. That life is a different issue, but on the issue of abortion we support the choice, not the death, of the individual. On the reverse, those that are pro-life, argue for the "life" of the embryo, and hence believe that the government is best to decide the fate of the embryo. On the issue of abortion, these are the two sides. The future life of the embryo is not the issue. If you seek to defend the life of every individual, then I would ask you, are you an organ donor? Are you a blood donor? If not, then I find it very hypocritical to say that you defend the "lives" of embryos, when you do no support the lives of humans. As for my personal character, I am a constant blood donor with type O+ blood, which is always in high demand. I am CPR and First-Aid certified. I am also an organ donor, as stated on my driver's license. And I am also a former cadet officer in the Civil Air Patrol (The Official Auxiliary of the United States Air Force), and yet with all I believe that I have done for the betterment of humanity and the American people, I still support the choice of the individual over the morals of oppression. The greatest value in America is the power to choose, and to support that right is to support the principles this nation was founded upon. Life, liberty, and property are the three basic principles defined by the Declaration of Independence, as based off of the ideas of John Locke, and to prevent the abortion of an embryo, the life of the mother is curbed for the potential life of the embryo, the liberty of the mother is dismantled by forcing her to have a child, and the mother loses the power over their own body, which does not give us the liberty to claim our own bodies, the same bodies that you are struggling so desperately to protect. Well, I ask you now, protect for whom? Protect life for the government? For the parents? For themselves? Or is it for your own morals?

Be what your answer may, the issue of abortion is an issue of choice. Should the parents of the child be the ones to decide the issue of abortion, or should it be the government?

And if any one out there says that they can better decide the fate of another's child than that child's own mother... so help me, and so help you. To think that you can be a better parent to a child you have never met is one of the most arrogant claims that can ever be made... And you are left with a lot to learn about parenting, maturing, and respect.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: pro-life means you believe the potential child should be allowed to live regardless of the choice of the mother. A sperm is a potential child, an egg is a potential child. After conception, it is a child. and pro life has nothing to do with blocking choices any more than condemning the choice of a murderer. The mother should think about such things BEFORE having sex and its that simple.
I say it is the pro death people who twist words more than anyone else.




Quote: you are against giving the mother a choice AFTER she becomes pregnant to continue or abort the pregnancy Yes, just as i am against charles manson having the choice to kill you.



Quote: you are anti-choice. meaning... anti-giving the mother a choice AFTER she has become pregnant. yes AFTER she has created a new life. That life now should have equal protection under our laws. Its not just a choice to abort, its a choice to end the life on a unique human individual. If that life is ended at any point after conception, no human being with those genetic blueprints will ever set foot upon this earth. In essence you are promoting the choice of a woman to rob someone of their entire existence. I cant imagine any possible choice being more heinous than this.





Quote: she may want to keep the baby or she may not want to keep the baby Yes and charles manson might choose to brain wash you or kill you. Im against him having that choice.

Quote: pro-choice means nothing more than that. you believe the mother has the right to decide what HER choice will be in the matter. No not at all. The mother CHOSE to have sex. That was her choice. Killing her baby shouldnt be a choice it should be a crime.

Quote: it does not mean that you want a woman to discard a pregnancy or abort a potential human life No she hasnt ovulated an unfertalized egg she has stopped the growth of a unique human individuals life so that she does not have to live with the burden of having a child. There is no potential life being killed there is a life being killed.

Quote: it is illogical to make a universal choice for something that cannot make choices when another human life which CAN make choices is present Then why cant mothers murder their babies AFTER they are born? The baby cant choose but the mother can.

Quote: the block of cells forming inside of her.. does not have a choice. therefore, the one who does must come first. Its not a block of cells, its a developing human life. No it doesnt have a choice that makes pro abortionists anti choice. Instead the mother who does have a choice should choose not to procreate if she can not deal with raising a child.

Quote: those who believe the woman has no choice in the matter are "pro-life" and those who believe she does are "pro-choice". calling pro-choicers "pro-death" and pro-lifers "pro-choice" (of the potential child) is doing nothing more than trying to demonize or demoralize those with a different view-point than you. No one believes the woman has no choice in the matter, the woman chose to have sex. That is her choice. Killing her baby isnt a choice its a crime.(should be anyways) Calling yourselves pro choice somehow implies I am anti choice and that is plain out false. I am anti death. The death of a child. Not a potential child, a child. An unborn child.







Quote: you can argue all you want that people call it a block of forming cells to make themselves feel better but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a block of forming cells which given time will form into a fully functioning (hopefully) human being. it, however, is not that human being yet.


Its merely young, a person isnt conceived already with a fully grown brain intact. They take time and age to grow. It doesnt magically become human at some further point in the pregnancy, it always was human just underdeveloped or young. The human adult it grows into has the same genetic code that embryo has, it is the same person years down the line only now it can defend itself.

[LostSoul3412]

AllAmericanMan wrote: I say it is the pro death people who twist words more than anyone else.

Alright, since you are unwilling to budge on your definitions, and I am unwilling to shift on mine, I will present our stance in terms that you will agree with. (Even if I do not agree with the terms used)

We do not support the murder of a child, we support the choice to murder that child. Whether or not that child is actually murdered it not the point. The point is that the mother can decide to kill her baby.

(Again, I do not agree with the terminology used in the previous statement)

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Pro life people are not anti choice they are pro choice. We are for the choice people have to engage in sexual reproduction. We are for giving the child inside the mother a chance at life they had no choice in starting.

Pro choice people are Pro death and anti choice. You are against giving the unborn child a chance to live and you disregard the mothers choice to create that life in the first place. As usual, your entire argument rests on sophist lies.

[AllAmericanMan]

Quote: As usual, your entire argument rests on sophist lies. As usual, a troll response.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: The mother should think about such things BEFORE having sex and its that simple. It is none of your business when and why people have sex. get lost with your fascist intrusion into peoples sex life.

Quote: I say it is the pro death people who twist words more than anyone else. Who? Are you lying again?

Quote: Quote: you are anti-choice. meaning... anti-giving the mother a choice AFTER she has become pregnant. yes AFTER she has created a new life. That life now should have equal protection under our laws. Which would give it more rights than the woman. And indeed would give it a unique right to use a person's body against their will, a "right" that nobody else hold. So your claim is simply another pro-life falsehood.

Quote: No not at all. The mother CHOSE to have sex. That was her choice. Killing her baby shouldnt be a choice it should be a crime. And nobody are killing babies anyway.


Quote: Quote: it does not mean that you want a woman to discard a pregnancy or abort a potential human life No she hasnt ovulated an unfertalized egg she has stopped the growth of a unique human individuals life There is no individual.

Quote: so that she does not have to live with the burden of having a child. Sounds good.

Quote: There is no potential life being killed there is a life being killed. no more than when a hydatidiform mole or a tumor is removed.

Quote: Quote: it is illogical to make a universal choice for something that cannot make choices when another human life which CAN make choices is present Then why cant mothers murder their babies AFTER they are born? they certainly can terminate their parenthood. Once again are your claims false and deceptive, typical pro-life dishonesty.

Quote: The baby cant choose but the mother can. There is no baby until birth, your emotional histrionics none withstanding.

Quote: Quote: the block of cells forming inside of her.. does not have a choice. therefore, the one who does must come first. Its not a block of cells, its a developing human life. In the form of a block of cells. Your denial is false, you are again lying.

Quote: No it doesnt have a choice that makes pro abortionists anti choice. but then, there are no "pro-abortionists" here, your lies none withstanding.

Quote: Instead the mother who does have a choice should choose not to procreate if she can not deal with raising a child. hence, it is importnat to push GOOD sex-ed and contraceptives, instead of the conservative, pro-life policy of keeping women underserved and ignorant.

Quote: No one believes the woman has no choice in the matter, the woman chose to have sex. That is her choice. A choice to have sex is not choi ce to be pregnany, any more than chosing to smoke is "chosing" to have lung cancer. Your claim is absurd.

Quote: Killing her baby isnt a choice its a crime.(should be anyways) But then, nobody are killing babies, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

Quote: Calling yourselves pro choice somehow implies I am anti choice and that is plain out false. I am anti death. The death of a child. Not a potential child, a child. Irrelevant to abortions.

Quote: An unborn child. Ah, emotional hyperbole. Like claiming you are an undead corpse. It is lame and pathetic that pro-lifers are unable to make tyheir argument without such dishonest, deceptive and stupid lies and misrepresentations.

Quote: Its merely young, a person isnt conceived already with a fully grown brain intact. Rambling nonsense.

[steen]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: As usual, your entire argument rests on sophist lies. As usual, a troll response. Rather, a factual observation that you can only deflect through lame lies.

[Izzibeth]

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: pro-life means you believe the potential child should be allowed to live regardless of the choice of the mother. A sperm is a potential child, an egg is a potential child. After conception, it is a child. and pro life has nothing to do with blocking choices any more than condemning the choice of a murderer. The mother should think about such things BEFORE having sex and its that simple.
I say it is the pro death people who twist words more than anyone else.




Quote: you are against giving the mother a choice AFTER she becomes pregnant to continue or abort the pregnancy Yes, just as i am against charles manson having the choice to kill you.



Quote: you are anti-choice. meaning... anti-giving the mother a choice AFTER she has become pregnant. yes AFTER she has created a new life. That life now should have equal protection under our laws. Its not just a choice to abort, its a choice to end the life on a unique human individual. If that life is ended at any point after conception, no human being with those genetic blueprints will ever set foot upon this earth. In essence you are promoting the choice of a woman to rob someone of their entire existence. I cant imagine any possible choice being more heinous than this.





Quote: she may want to keep the baby or she may not want to keep the baby Yes and charles manson might choose to brain wash you or kill you. Im against him having that choice.

Quote: pro-choice means nothing more than that. you believe the mother has the right to decide what HER choice will be in the matter. No not at all. The mother CHOSE to have sex. That was her choice. Killing her baby shouldnt be a choice it should be a crime.

Quote: it does not mean that you want a woman to discard a pregnancy or abort a potential human life No she hasnt ovulated an unfertalized egg she has stopped the growth of a unique human individuals life so that she does not have to live with the burden of having a child. There is no potential life being killed there is a life being killed.

Quote: it is illogical to make a universal choice for something that cannot make choices when another human life which CAN make choices is present Then why cant mothers murder their babies AFTER they are born? The baby cant choose but the mother can.

Quote: the block of cells forming inside of her.. does not have a choice. therefore, the one who does must come first. Its not a block of cells, its a developing human life. No it doesnt have a choice that makes pro abortionists anti choice. Instead the mother who does have a choice should choose not to procreate if she can not deal with raising a child.

Quote: those who believe the woman has no choice in the matter are "pro-life" and those who believe she does are "pro-choice". calling pro-choicers "pro-death" and pro-lifers "pro-choice" (of the potential child) is doing nothing more than trying to demonize or demoralize those with a different view-point than you. No one believes the woman has no choice in the matter, the woman chose to have sex. That is her choice. Killing her baby isnt a choice its a crime.(should be anyways) Calling yourselves pro choice somehow implies I am anti choice and that is plain out false. I am anti death. The death of a child. Not a potential child, a child. An unborn child.







Quote: you can argue all you want that people call it a block of forming cells to make themselves feel better but the simple fact of the matter is that it is a block of forming cells which given time will form into a fully functioning (hopefully) human being. it, however, is not that human being yet.


Its merely young, a person isnt conceived already with a fully grown brain intact. They take time and age to grow. It doesnt magically become human at some further point in the pregnancy, it always was human just underdeveloped or young. The human adult it grows into has the same genetic code that embryo has, it is the same person years down the line only now it can defend itself.

it seems impossible to effectively argue this on the internet. though i am sure in person it would be the same problem.

my definitions do not attack pro-lifers at all. i am stating facts only. pro-lifers are anti-choice being that "choice" in this case = choice of the mother in whether to continue with a pregnancy or abort a pregnancy. the choice of the mother to have the sex which led to her getting pregnant in the first place is a completely different "choice" and not which my "anti-choice" definition covers.
i (and other pro-choicers) do not condemn that you would like to ensure that, at the moment of conception, a fertilized egg is considered a human being and therefore is entitled to all the rights that human beings have. that is wonderful. it's a good thing.
however, the attempt to demonize or demoralize those of us who have a different view; that being that a fertilized egg does not become a human being until a certain point in the eggs development and therefore the choice of the mother whether or not to continue with her pregnancy comes before giving the state authority to force her to do so, does nothing to further your cause. pro-choicers are not pro-death. being pro-gun does not make you pro-death although ultimately all a gun was developed for was a more effective way of killing people. the choices of individuals are what matter.
i know someone who was very close to me who had an abortion. it was a tough decision for her. it will plague her for the rest of her life. i would rather her have been able to continue on with the pregnancy and raise a healthy child and be happy. but i supported her choice and support her choice to this day. she did what she thought was right at the time. she didn't do it out of hate or malice or anger. she is a good person and she did it out of desperation and realization. she is not a demon or a bad person.

charles manson....
charles manson can make whatever choice he wants. if he wants to torture and kill me. he can do it! and he will (if he wants to). there is nothing STOPPING him from doing it. consequences are what come later. his choice is still there. his choice is considered a crime and has been made illegal and therefore he faced the consequences but for all intensive purposes... charles manson was never denied the RIGHT to MAKE THE DECISION to kill someone. does he have the right to kill someone? no. because we have decided that all people have the right to life. abortion is an issue because not all of us agree on the point at which a fertilized egg becomes a 'person'. that's all.

if i personally were to get pregnant at this stage in my life i am at this moment undecided as to what i would do. right now i am in a loving relationship and it would deeply hurt me emotionally if i aborted a pregnancy that someone i love and myself created. i am very, very careful though. sometimes almost too careful but i have made a choice that i am not ready to have a child so i do all i can to ensure that i don't get pregnant. i also live in a country with an ample supply of education about how to prevent pregnancy and materials available for that. that being said.. i am not where i want to be in life education-wise or career-wise. were i to get pregnant now i would not be able to afford to have the child let alone raise it. having babies isn't free as people like to say. a quick glance at a hospital bill will show you that. BUT... i am not saying i would have an abortion. it isn't the decision of choice for the majority of pro-choicers. having not been faced with that situation... yet being in the situation i am in with the person i love i would hope that my choice would be to find a way to have and raise the baby. i couldn't tell you what i would do. but i believe that my ability to choose my next step should be there.