Bans 'do not cut abortion rate'

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Although according to some, liberals use it as a first response, and celebrate it as such.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

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.

Perhaps the ones who don't want motherhood should have thought of that during the conception?

[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.

It makes for a nice Sci Fi tangent to this story that can even bring people together.

Well... offhand you'd have to ask who owns the equipment, for one

But again its so out there as to be useless in terms of this debate.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

The fact is that late term abortions are carried out extremely rarely and in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where there is massive disfigurement that would result in still birth.

I don't agree with it beyond those criteria and the window of opportunity to take care of it at an early stage is pretty generous.

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.

Its not a technicality - its a fact.

Why don't you like late term abortions?

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Well... again there's that question of what's technical and what isn't. Borne babies can always get fed by women other than biological mom, and artficially as well. The gestational aspect is where that part of the debate is and making an incongruous parallel between a fetus and a post-natal baby based on dependance for sustenance is not the best way of stating a claim here.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact is that late term abortions are carried out extremely rarely and in cases where the mother's life is in danger or where there is massive disfigurement that would result in still birth.

I don't agree with it beyond those criteria and the window of opportunity to take care of it at an early stage is pretty generous.

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.

Its not a technicality - its a fact.

Why don't you like late term abortions?

Its a more dangerous procedure.

[Joseph & Ana 0]

Imposing pregnancy? NO one is imposing pregnancy - She CHOSE to be pregnant when she spread her legs. In case anyone hasn't heard, that is how babies are made.

That would only be true if pregnancy was guaranteed each time someone has sex.

Even you must know that that isn't the case.

No sir, but you're guaranteed not to get pregnant if you abstain.

When I go fishing, I don't necessarily go for the fish. Sometimes I get one, sometimes I don't. But I know for sure that its a good possibility.

[Empress of Groovy 373]

The baby has a right too. Murder is immoral.

Murder is a legal term. Abortion is not murder according to U.S. law.

[HAL 9000 96]

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

Just like the debate on human cloning. Some 'moralists' sure won't mind growing new body parts after years of abusing the ones they already have.

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Ideological battle, good grief? Thats just what you want to believe and go ahead. I have said many things about this issue and its funny how you want to grab on to this and try and run with it, fail.

He's right though. Morality is not reasonable when its imposed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Imposing pregnancy? NO one is imposing pregnancy - She CHOSE to be pregnant when she spread her legs. In case anyone hasn't heard, that is how babies are made.

That would only be true if pregnancy was guaranteed each time someone has sex.

Even you must know that that isn't the case.

No sir, but you're guaranteed not to get pregnant if you abstain.

When I go fishing, I don't necessarily go for the fish. Sometimes I get one, sometimes I don't. But I know for sure that its a good possibility.

So what?

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed. An abortion is not and should not be a cosmetic nor a birth control procedure. They tell you this during counseling before proceeding with one.

I don't understand why there is this idea that somehow abortion is some sort of recreational procedure - as if the woman gets her hair and nails done while she waits

J/K

[Chica Yeyé 41]

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

Just like the debate on human cloning. Some 'moralists' sure won't mind growing new body parts after years of abusing the ones they already have.

Agreed on all counts. Although I would really like to replicate my.... oh, never mind

[HAL 9000 96]

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.

Imposing pregnancy? NO one is imposing pregnancy - She CHOSE to be pregnant when she spread her legs. In case anyone hasn't heard, that is how babies are made.

And this happens everytime? WOW!

Um... not.

[_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.

Fair enough, because when it gets boiled down to the moral aspect- I can only rightfully control what I do to myself. I am no woman so I have no right if for example, my wife and I were to be blessed with a baby, to force any decision on her. I would plead to keep it because I wish for fatherhood someday. My morality would plead for me to want the baby, but I would definitely accept my wife's decision to not keep it if she felt that we were not ready.

In the meantime, we'll do what most educated people do- use birth control.

Ok I see where your coming from, I know that if my wife chooses to have a abortion there really is nothing I could do about it. I wouldnt be able to stand by her on this decision though and as the law stands now I have no word is this matter, no on does. I hope that the laws will change.

Exactly I agree, people for the love of all thats good start using birth control.