maracas,
"Just imagine the drop in abortions that would occur if that sort of money(Billions of dollars)was expended in Health and Education."
Well I think that'd be great. Maybe Timkins would think so too.
But, this is off the topic. The fact that this is off the topic is the reason Timkins isn't raving about it here. Does anyone need to rave about Iraq to prove that they value human life? Maybe if Iraq was the topic. But it isn't here.

Amanda’s article is position neutral. She proclaims neither support not criticism of abortion.

Being pro-choice across almost all aspects of life, abortion included, I decided to wait
and see what some others had written before adding my penny-worth

Brazuca,

“How do you convince a Nazi that a Jew is a human being?
How do you convince a pro-abortionist that a foetus is a human being?
Pretty tough things to do, huh?

Oh, well, I guess it's up to the Nazi (and woman) to choose for himself”

Weak arguments rely on dramatic hyperbole and the invariable reference to Nazi’s.

So lets put this into context.

Nazi Germany
Pro Abortion Posture -
Policy of abortion and worse of Jews, the enfeebled, slavs, gypsies etc.

Anti Abortion Posture –

Women of Aryan stock who attempted abortion were considered enemies of the state by denying the state the right to the resources of their womb (their children) – penalty – initially imprisonment later escalated to the death penalty.

What is different – being considered “subhuman” by the state or being considered the “property” of the state (for the purpose of child production)?

So the hyperbole of this argument, like most pro-life arguments is rubbish. It can only be supported if we look at the demands of pro-life and observe, they parallel the demands of Hitler’s 3rd Reich where Aryan women were denied the right of choice supposedly for the “greater good”.

The decision to abort is a personal one. It effects “significantly” one person and one embryo. It might effect the father to some comparatively minor extent but it does not effect greater society to any extent. The inidividual decision does not effect pro-life promoters to any degree more than it effected Hitler, so does that presume pro-life hold the same values as Hitler? – I think not, anymore than pro-choice values are sensibly compared to nazi values.

"...the demands of pro-life... parallel the demands of Hitler’s 3rd Reich where Aryan women were denied the right of choice supposedly for the “greater good”."

NOW who's using hyperbole?

It is NOT for the "greater good" that pro-life "demands" that abortion be discontinued. It is because once a human is conceived, it has human rights (including the right to life).

An embro is human because of two things: 1- human DNA; 2- self moving (alive)

Pro-choice stance <can> be compared to Nazi values in that it fails to recognise the humanity of certain kinds of peopple. (This is not hyperbole but a negation of a false declaration by the Colonel.) Where the Nazi's have their untermenschen the pro-choice have their non-human human embryos.

For those who would force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy, please consider what you are demanding.

Pregnancy involves morning sickness (a neat euphamism for what often involves nausea and vomiting at any time of day for months), heartburn, changes in skeletal structure, feet spreading (you'll never wear those cute shoes again- feet often spread, and remain, a size or two larger), hands swollen, outbreaks of pimples (hormone changes)(and nevermind the moodswings and cravings), sometimes such lovely things as piles, nevermind general bloating, skin stretching so far that it puckers and leaves lovely purple marks, which, yes, fade in time, but never completely. To say nothing of the difficulties sleeping, the sore breasts, and the social difficulties: even looking at a glass of wine will have strangers glaring at you, random people try and rub your stomach, and often diet changes are needed (no more brie or camembert!).

And then there is the birth. Whether you deliver traditionally or via caesarean, there is blood and mess and gore, and pain. Significant amounts of pain. To use the immortal words of Kirstie Alley in "Look Who's Talking": You see how hot you look after pushing something the size of a watermelon out of something the size of a lemon!

Yes, many women have a lovely pregnancy 'glow', and it is the happiest time of their lives.

But, if you don't want the end product, why would any sane person want to go through with it?

Preganacy and birth is not a nine-month cakewalk. Denying people the option of choosing wheather or not to go through with it is not considering the very real rights of the whole person who is here; in favour of the 'potentiality' of the fetus.

Jose
What 'rights' an embryo might have are secondary to the rights of the woman. The embryo does not get a vote. The decision to terminate rests with the woman and her doctor.
Pro-lifers should lobby for ready access to the 'morning after pill'
which would most likely reduce the need for later terminations.

Jose – regarding your hissing fit

“NOW who's using hyperbole?”

I would restate my position regarding pro life in the paragraphs below that which you selective quoted –

“so does that presume pro-life hold the same values as Hitler? – I THINK NOT, anymore than pro-choice values are sensibly compared to nazi values.”

There for you to read and consider. The “hyperbole” was all from the pro-life proponents, not me.

“An embro is human because of two things: 1- human DNA; 2- self moving (alive)”

However, their can be no claim to independence or individuality (important characteristic for a functioning human being), since the embryo, prior generally to birth, in inseparable to the woman’s body and it shares the resources of that woman’s body.

If you insist on comparing a pro-choice perspective to Hitler, I am at liberty to make similar comparisons between “pro-life” and Hitler, viz –
In that both pro life and Hitler assume the right to impose their view over what should be the private and personal decision of an individual.

Where

Nazis had their edicts to pursue the purity of the race and the numbers of the race and criminalize abortion for pure aryan women (June 1943 from mere imprisonment to a capital offence), something which was previously a free choice by individuals,
Pro-life have their edicts to deny abortion to individuals and criminalize what currently are the free choices of individuals.
In that respect – prolife are nazi’s

(This is not hyperbole but a negation of a false declaration by Jose.)

PS Jose, “Col” is not an abbreviation of “Colonel” – I will not bore you with its meaning, the subtlety of which would simply fly over your head.