Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by loueedacat

You say then you would see no need for abortion if pregnancy was a two week burden - would you then support a ban on abortion? And why if it's not human? And is your current objection therefore really the magnitude of the inconvenience imposed by a nine month pregnancy? [and I'm not talking rape and health of mother cases, which I agree are different

I said no such thing in my post. Forcing a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy has many short term and permanent burdens that accompany it. I'm glad you can write them off as simple "inconveniences", as it doesn't mean much coming from a man that won't ever have to endure them. What I said was that if an embryo could be removed and grown outside of the womb, I cant see way an "abortion" would be necessary as the result is the same. Woman have an abortion for the result, not the procedure, so personally any procedure which makes them no longer pregnant would suffice.

As for "liberty" only a person has constitutional right's, as embryo's and fetuses are not persons, they have no rights so they can not trump those of the pregnant woman's. My objection is as I've stated many times before, that the state, nor I, nor anyone else has no right to infringe on the woman right to choose a medical procedure unless she is incapable of making an informed decision due to mental defect or capacity.

I'm glad you think rape and the health of the mother are different, unfortunately, many of the pro-life movement don't share your enlightened belief.

Originally Posted by Hutch

embryo's and fetuses are not persons

when do they become persons?

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

when do they become persons?

When they can viably survive outside the womb.

Originally Posted by Hutch

When they can viably survive outside the womb.

Does that mean feed themselves, etc? With no outside care?

Originally Posted by Hutch

When they can viably survive outside the womb.

At what point is this? My children could not survive without me and my wife! They are outside the womb!

I believe as commonly used in this part of the argument it means survive as a child outside the womb. As a child implies being fed, etc.

Your point, of course, is taken. A child can't "survive" without adult care...why should that be the line? We are back to...when does a "child" come into existance? This is the argument for some. Of course, it is irrelavant to others...if at conception it is a possible future life, it is not a child...but some still believe that is the point at which rights attach themselves.

Originally Posted by JMS

At what point is this? My children could not survive without me and my wife! They are outside the womb!

I'm sure you know exactly what it means. Believe me your children would survive without you, they may not be as happy and have all their stuff, but they most likely would not die. Lots of children have survived the death of their parents

I keep promising myself not to post in this thread anymore, and I can't help it!

The survive on it's own theory is a troubling model. Yes our teenagers might scrape by without us, but a newborn clearly would not survive on its own, so is killing it ok? That's why I see mordern abortion as akin to the ancient greeks leaving babies that they couldn't support for the wolves.

But since when do we value life by whether it can fend for itself. Is it ok to terminate my wife's grandparents, who can't live on their own (parkensins and althzeihmers). Is a sick AIDs patient fair game? That to me is a goal oriented argument - you want to get to the right answer (it's ok to kill a fetus), so you come up with an argument (if you disconnect it today, can it breath). But that doesn't at all get to whether it's human, has a soul, is your child, or however you view these things.

Originally Posted by Hutch

I'm sure you know exactly what it means. Believe me your children would survive without you, they may not be as happy and have all their stuff, but they most likely would not die. Lots of children have survived the death of their parents

Only by the help of others, but without that help most children, up to a certain age would not survive!

Originally Posted by Hutch

I'm sure you know exactly what it means. Believe me your children would survive without you, they may not be as happy and have all their stuff, but they most likely would not die. Lots of children have survived the death of their parents

Similarly, many children have survived the exiting of the womb - but how is their success or failure at that an indication of their individual human rights?