Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[Peikko 1,575]

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.

You can't have that debate while this is not reality. I suspect, and I hope that the ability to regulate whether one would become pregnant during intercourse will have improved leaps and bounds by that time, and that women who are currently prevented from using contraception for whatever reason, will no longer be prevented from doing so. Abortion is not the first resort for anyone - it is the last.

[_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.

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?

The baby outside the womb is just as dependent and after birth theres no guarantee of life either. I know what your going for though, theres no possibility for life, but we have the means to give them a chance. Why should we not?

Of course the fetus doesn't have any rights but fortunately many are working to change that.

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?

Step back and look at the big picture here, lives will be saved.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Eventually science will invalidate our current thinking, always has always will.

[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?

The baby outside the womb is just as dependent and after birth theres no guarantee of life either. I know what your going for though, theres no possibility for life, but we have the means to give them a chance. Why should we not?

Of course the fetus doesn't have any rights but fortunately many are working to change that.

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?

Step back and look at the big picture here, lives will be saved.

No, the baby outside the womb can be cared for by anyone. Inside the womb only one person.

Imposing pregnancy on women who do not wish to go through with it will save no lives at all in fact, I would predict a greater number of deaths. Pregnant women who do not wish to be pregnant will attempt to kill the fetus, even if in the process they kill themselves. This is documented fact.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The baby outside the womb is just as dependent and after birth theres no guarantee of life either. I know what your going for though, theres no possibility for life, but we have the means to give them a chance. Why should we not?

Outside the womb, it is an autonomous individual that isn't dependent on its mother's biological processes for survival. At the point at which the vast majority of abortions take place, the fetus isn't.

Of course the fetus doesn't have any rights but fortunately many are working to change that.

Yeah. By condemning the mother to a form of slavery - all so that the "moralists" can win an ideological battle. If it were anything more than that - they'd want to take care of the child themselves.

Of course, that isn't what they want. What they want is to force their concept of responsibility onto people.

[_Simpson_ 250]

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

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

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

[HAL 9000 96]

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

Indeed it is. Nutjobs that are anti-abortion continue to supplant a vague notion of fetal self-determinism for individual rights of choice.

[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!

Now your just being ridiculous, but hey I will play along. Whens the last time you seen a pregnant woman slip into a clinic at the exact same time a doctor slips and accidental gives the woman a abortion?

People need to be held accountable for there actions, from the bedroom the operation room.

And that, right there is your agenda.

You don't give a ####### about the practicalities of having or looking after the child, you just want to win an ideological battle to enforce your concept of morality onto pregnant women. It's a form of slavery is what it is.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Gene Hunt

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Its another slippery slope argument to which you responded to. Boil it down to a reductionist approach with bold, simple words for them to understand along black and white lines of reasoning.

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

And they also have a right to their bodies that you have NO say over.

[Peikko 1,575]

Eventually science will invalidate our current thinking, always has always will.

If the hoped for breakthroughs in birth control come about much of this debate will indeed become moot so long as there is concensus that access to birth control is also a fundamental right

[HAL 9000 96]

rights of the baby only begin once the baby has been born. It's that simple.

Mainly because it made you guys feel better about murdering them.

A fetus is not considered as a separate entity from the point of view of human rights prior to birth.

Many people would disagree. That's the point. The abortion argument essentially boils down to whether or not the fetus can be considered as a human with rights of its own. If you take as a premise that the baby doesn't have rights, you're correct in saying that the debate is pretty pointless.

Either way, it's not a debate about female rights. It's a debate about fetus rights.

The way the 'law' considers it- female rights trumps any consideration of fetal rights based on X, Y, and Z factors that are quite clear. I understand the moral argument and some folks should just stick with that.

Pretty much. The right to "choose" is just that: to give women the choice of when they have offspring. In fact it doesn't require any sort of judgement or moralising from other people as to the behaviour or choices of the individual.

They have a right to choose whether they spread their legs.

But we're not talking about the cooperation of just anyone else - so pulling out analogies about vegetative people in hospitals is irrelevant. We're talking about the cooperation of one specifically identifiable person who would be forced to go through biological changes and financial burdens if they were forced to go through with the pregnancy.

Didn't have a problem going through with the sex though!

Yes, Joe. Unless we're talking about prostitutes (but... even then) Women can choose when they have sex.

So what?

There's where the freedom of choice is.

I have not problem with the notion of killing fetus under these circumstances. I don't need to feel better about it.

But you do b/c you are a liberal . Its a well known fact that liberals rejoice in the murder of babies (as yet an undefined term) while they are gestating.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Eventually science will invalidate our current thinking, always has always will.

If the hoped for breakthroughs in birth control come about much of this debate will indeed become moot so long as there is concensus that access to birth control is also a fundamental right

I think that's a tad more realistic and "in the now" than growing people in plastic bags in laboratories.

[HAL 9000 96]

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

Excellent question. Women that WANT motherhood that are willing to have an oocyte removed from their bodies for the reproductive means would likely be happy to see that fertilized oocyte go to zygote, embryo, fetus, and living baby. Fathers too I guess.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Outside the womb, it is an autonomous individual that isn't dependent on its mother's biological processes for survival. At the point at which the vast majority of abortions take place, the fetus isn't.

Outside the womb, it is an autonomous individual that isn't dependent on its mother's biological processes for survival

what a stretch but like I said before these technicalities are going to cut it for me, theres something bigger here that needs to be addressed.

At the point at which the vast majority of abortions take place, the fetus isn't

Your decision on this doesnt change when its beyond the vast majority does it? So I dont think it matters, I am concerned with moral aspect of this

Edited October 15, 2009 by _Simpson_

[HAL 9000 96]

Men also have a choice about where (and into whom, if I must be crude) they deposit their sperm.

Biology hasn't given us much room for compromise if one person wants the pregnancy to continue and the other does not.

But... one time... in band camp...