Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[_Simpson_ 250]

'Regular'' murderers don't gestate, just to clarify. Unless, of course, we want to accept Joe's definition of abortion as murder that isn't legally sound at this point.

This entire argument is based on people's take on morality- and defining things that are not completely accurate in the meantime. People that use ignorant arguments like Joe often cannot grasp the basics behind these concepts, and therefore, cannot make accurate representations of how 'individuality' and biology are interrelated.

If the argument was I'm against abortion (the procedure) on most grounds because an 8-celled zygote has a beating heart, then... even if it were completely incorrect, there'd be room to discuss with rationality on board. Unfortunately, when the misinterpretation of fact impedes a rational discussion- you can see the result with keypounding above.

As I've stated to you before- I, and many people that favor abortion RIGHTS, are not particularly keen on celebrating abortions. Only an idiot would make statements to the contrary.

I stayed out of that part of the debate, beating heart, its alive and all that because I know how the pro choice people love to hear that so they can shoot back about how technically its not considered a life and this is the law, all the while distracting us from the moral aspect of this, which is really at the heart of this for me. This issue will never go away because of this simple fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Eventually technology will allow fetuses to grow outside a human womb...what then?

Then we'll have a different set of ethical considerations (which would likely preclude that possibility except in a narrow range of circumstances).

'Regular'' murderers don't gestate, just to clarify. Unless, of course, we want to accept Joe's definition of abortion as murder that isn't legally sound at this point.

This entire argument is based on people's take on morality- and defining things that are not completely accurate in the meantime. People that use ignorant arguments like Joe often cannot grasp the basics behind these concepts, and therefore, cannot make accurate representations of how 'individuality' and biology are interrelated.

If the argument was I'm against abortion (the procedure) on most grounds because an 8-celled zygote has a beating heart, then... even if it were completely incorrect, there'd be room to discuss with rationality on board. Unfortunately, when the misinterpretation of fact impedes a rational discussion- you can see the result with keypounding above.

As I've stated to you before- I, and many people that favor abortion RIGHTS, are not particularly keen on celebrating abortions. Only an idiot would make statements to the contrary.

I stayed out of that part of the debate, beating heart, its alive and all that because I know how the pro choice people love to hear that so they can shoot back about how technically its not considered a life and this is the law, all the while distracting us from the moral aspect of this, which is really at the heart of this for me. This issue will never go away because of this simple fact.

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not that a fetus is dependent in that sense - it's a fundamental life and death dependence. The fetus CANNOT LIVE without the mother. END OF STORY.

Once you get that point, you'll cease with this drivel.

How does that simplistic way of looking at it make you believe that we should not protect the fetus?

[Peikko 1,575]

Because it's not possible even if one wanted to. The fetus is at the mercy of the whims of the mother while it is in her body, it's that simplistic, if you will.

[SMR 368]

Again, you are missing the point. It's not that a fetus is dependent in that sense - it's a fundamental life and death dependence. The fetus CANNOT LIVE without the mother. END OF STORY.

Once you get that point, you'll cease with this drivel.

Actually, as I pointed out, the fetus can live outside of the mother after a certain point in the pregnancy. Since a baby can survive after 21 weeks of pregnancy, after that it really is morally equivalent to a vegetative person in a hospital. In a couple years, that point may move further. What happens when if medical technology can save a baby after a month of pregnancy (before the mother is even aware that she is pregnant)?

After conception, a father has a responsibility to his unborn child that is enforceable in court. All he would have to do is supply the sperm and then he'll be paying every month until that baby is 18. Why do you think that it's ridiculous that a mother can also be responsible for a child once she conceives it? If she didn't want to carry the pregnancy to term, could she be held financially accountable for medical care if the baby was to a point that it could be delivered and survive? Why not? What if the father paid to take care of the premature baby and it survived? Is she accountable for child support? In general, parents are responsible for the care of their children.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Eventually technology will allow fetuses to grow outside a human womb...what then?

Then we'll have a different set of ethical considerations (which would likely preclude that possibility except in a narrow range of circumstances).

'Regular'' murderers don't gestate, just to clarify. Unless, of course, we want to accept Joe's definition of abortion as murder that isn't legally sound at this point.

This entire argument is based on people's take on morality- and defining things that are not completely accurate in the meantime. People that use ignorant arguments like Joe often cannot grasp the basics behind these concepts, and therefore, cannot make accurate representations of how 'individuality' and biology are interrelated.

If the argument was I'm against abortion (the procedure) on most grounds because an 8-celled zygote has a beating heart, then... even if it were completely incorrect, there'd be room to discuss with rationality on board. Unfortunately, when the misinterpretation of fact impedes a rational discussion- you can see the result with keypounding above.

As I've stated to you before- I, and many people that favor abortion RIGHTS, are not particularly keen on celebrating abortions. Only an idiot would make statements to the contrary.

I stayed out of that part of the debate, beating heart, its alive and all that because I know how the pro choice people love to hear that so they can shoot back about how technically its not considered a life and this is the law, all the while distracting us from the moral aspect of this, which is really at the heart of this for me. This issue will never go away because of this simple fact.

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Are you saying that it will be unethical to grow a fetus in an artificial womb if the technology is there, and yet its ethical to destroy the fetus?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are you saying that it will be unethical to grow a fetus in an artificial womb if the technology is there, and yet its ethical to destroy the fetus?

It would rather depend on a lot of things - not least the circumstances - who is doing it, how and why.

Genetic engineering for cosmetic purposes as well as human cloning are viable technologies but are ethnically dodgy for various reasons.

Not that the waters of this debate need to be muddied than they already are

[_Simpson_ 250]

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Well sure she has some rights, I truly believe that but the key word is SOME. Its not just her that this affects, it affects the fetus too and that should be considered too when the mothers life isnt in danger.

As far as the emotional aspect of this, its going to be draining no matter how you go about this, I know some people that have had abortions and they really have a hard time dealing with it and has affected them tremendously.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Well sure she has some rights, I truly believe that but the key word is SOME. Its not just her that this affects, it affects the fetus too and that should be considered too when the mothers life isnt in danger.

As far as the emotional aspect of this, its going to be draining no matter how you go about this, I know some people that have had abortions and they really have a hard time dealing with it and has affected them tremendously.

It shouldn't be considered in such a way as to completely override the wishes of the person who has to go through the pregnancy, give birth to the child and take care of it.

Reproductive rights aren't equal, they can't be. If they were, men would be able to have children.

[Peikko 1,575]

The point of fact there surely is that as it's inextricably a part of the woman's body, so she has some right to determine what happens to it, and whether she wants to go through something physically, emotionally and financially draining.

Well sure she has some rights, I truly believe that but the key word is SOME. Its not just her that this affects, it affects the fetus too and that should be considered too when the mothers life isnt in danger.

As far as the emotional aspect of this, its going to be draining no matter how you go about this, I know some people that have had abortions and they really have a hard time dealing with it and has affected them tremendously.

The fetus doesn't have any rights. The fetus cannot survive to birth without the co-operation of the mother. The fetus never has a guarantee of life. The fetus is a necessarily fragile entity. The fetus must come second to the mother when one considers the issue of rights because the fetus is completely dependent on her co operation. That is the simplicity of it.

If you want to impose the rights of the fetus onto the mother, you will find a certain number of women in jail during pregnancy. Is that where you wish to go?

Edited October 15, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[_Simpson_ 250]

Because it's not possible even if one wanted to. The fetus is at the mercy of the whims of the mother while it is in her body, it's that simplistic, if you will.

Once again your leaving out the moral aspect of this, but so what if the fetus cant survive with out the mom, how does that devalue the fetus. The matter of the fact is we have a way to make it survive without the mother and should pursue that to no end.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Imagine. Suddenly slipping on the floor of your bathroom becomes negligent homicide.

Having a glass of wine or two becomes a jailable offence!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

What I'm getting at is that once technology can guarantee the survival of the fetus then this debate about where he/she has rights no longer exists. Yes I'm sure there will be regulations in its use but if it can save lives I'm sure it will be implemented in some form once it has been determined as safe.

[Peikko 1,575]

Because it's not possible even if one wanted to. The fetus is at the mercy of the whims of the mother while it is in her body, it's that simplistic, if you will.

Once again your leaving out the moral aspect of this, but so what if the fetus cant survive with out the mom, how does that devalue the fetus. The matter of the fact is we have a way to make it survive without the mother and should pursue that to no end.

Good luck with that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I'm getting at is that once technology can guarantee the survival of the fetus then this debate about where he/she has rights no longer exists. Yes I'm sure there will be regulations in its use but if it can save lives I'm sure it will be implemented in some form once it has been determined as safe.

That isn't necessarily true. The ethics would depend entirely on the circumstances. As your entire premise is hypothetical, the ethics can only be hypothetical guesswork.