Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It needs to be regulated once the a human life hangs in the balance.
At a point in the pregnancy prior to delivery, it's a baby. It's a human life. Human life deserves reasonable protection.
And since when does the doctor and the mother not ensure reasonable protection. The only reason people are having 3rd trimester abortions is because the mother or child will not survive past birth. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Pro-lifers avoid the subject of IVF and frozen embryos like the plague, don't they?
When there isn't a woman attached that they can subjugate and punish, all of their concern for unborn "babies" ceases to exist.
Very telling, isn't it?
Not at all, I am 100% against the process of such when it results in the loss of a life. I didn't avoid anything, I merely stated I can not speak for the people she claimed as such.
So since we have thrown out the notion of body autonomy, you would be ok with adult children legally forcing their parents to donate organs to them right?
Defend your argument. Establish your premise, and provide a conclusion based on such.
If it results in the termination of the life that is conceived, absolutely. Do those methods meet that requirement?
If the premise is that women are required to risk their lives, and lose their inherent body autonomy because an embryo is a person and depriving them of that results in the loss of the embryos "life", why is an actual person, not allowed to legally force their parents to donate organs to them?
Both lives are important. Again, you argue one is lesser, you are placing a value on life to fit your political position. You are saying the life of a child is lesser than the mother that carries it. That fundamentally dismisses the life of the child and is no different in attitude than those who in the past viewed slaves or women as "lesser" in value.
Murder doesn't go away when it is illegal. You have no point here. Your argument now is that because people will do it anyway, it should be legal. Fallacious reasoning that is.
You are the one placing a value on life and then dismissing its liberties for the sake of another. You are excusing the violation of that life's liberties.
You have no right to privacy when it entails the violation of liberties of another.
I can't speak for them, why don't you ask them?
the mother is more important than a fetus, which is why some anti choice folks are ok with abortion to save the mother's life.
murder in the case of abortion is subjective. I do not view it as such and neither does the law.
there is no personhood for a developing being in the womb. it has no liberties.
women do have the right to privacy over their own health care. their decisions do not violate any one else.
you can't speak for frozen embryos? why not, you are speaking for the innocent unborn, of which they are.
Basically, here is the argument: Since, by causing an embryo to exist, you created a need where there was no need before. Specifically, before coming into existence, the embryo had no needs; however, now, as a result of coming into existence, it needs to use your body to survive (and for nourishment). Thus, you should be forced to take responsibility for your actions by helping the embryo out--specifically by letting this embryo continue to use your body in order to survive and to acquire nourishment.
How exactly would you respond to this pro-life argument? Basically, while I myself previously looked at both abortion and child support from the perspective of tort law (indeed, I still consider child support to be government-sanctioned swindling if there was a prior agreement *not* to seek child support), I have to admit that that I didn't place as much emphasis on the *need* aspect of the equation before.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Yes. My thoughts are "insanity." No sane person would think this way.
Not at all, I am 100% against the process of such when it results in the loss of a life. I didn't avoid anything, I merely stated I can not speak for the people she claimed as such.
I wasn't speaking to you specifically.
Where are the pro-life marches in front of IVF clinics protesting all of the "babies" created only to be discarded?
IVF women are worse than women who abort. Women abort because the pregnancy was a mistake, an accident, women who use IVF create "babies" ON PURPOSE, knowing full well they are going to kill some of them. Pick out the best and discard the rest.
Let's see, how many unborn babies is it OK to kill to get one born baby? Two, three, four, five?
This is done thousands of times a day and not a PEEP out of the pro-life crowd.
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Where are all of the pro-life politicians creating legislation to tightly regulate the IVF industry?
For instance, why isn't it against the law to create more embryos than you implant?
Why is it OK to pick out the "best" embryos to implant and discard the rest and not OK to abort because a fetus has defects?
They are all "babies", so why aren't pro-lifers making a big stink about IVF abortions?
I will tell you why.....because going after IVF abortions doesn't punish women who do not want a pregnancy.
Last edited by Annie53; 02-22-2017 at 06:47 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
