Thread: Abortion: split from stem cell research

Originally Posted by Hutch

I think it's callus that someone not involved in the situation can make a life decision for someone else with-out knowing any details.

Me too that's why I am against killing people before they are out of the womb and able to make a few decisions for themselves.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Me too that's why I am against killing people before they are out of the womb and able to make a few decisions for themselves.

I agree I'm against killing people in the womb, the good thing is there aren't any people in the womb, there's only embryos and fetuses.

Originally Posted by Hutch

I agree I'm against killing people in the womb, the good thing is there aren't any people in the womb, there's only embryos and fetuses.

And thats where you are wrong.

/Thread

How about allowing both the sperm and egg donor to decide whether the "embryo" is viable. sometime between the time they start sucking oxygen and the day they are 18.

as for a fetus or embryo being "an unvialable clump of cells" I'm willing to wager that we can all be defined as unviable tissue mass... without the support of other how long would most of us survive?..

i offer this challange... strip naked and go live in the woods for 3 weeks without any tools of modern society... come back and tell us how it went...


when you allow others to decide your rights then you are no more than a slave to them.

live your life the best way you no how and allow me to do the same...

Thanks for the brave anonymous negative feedback. Rather than answering the questions. I guess no ones given you the talking points yet.

Okay, people, take a deep breath. We're at the traditional impasse. Further discuss is probably useless.

As I said up front, there is a vocal, fairly sizable minority that believes that the fertilized egg is a human being with rights that trump the rights of the mother. Period. End of discussion.

My only disappointment with that faction is that they persist in focusing ONLY on areas of disagreement and never, ever seek consensus on issues on which we can agree and which would probably be effective in reducing the number of abortions performed drastically. We can agree, for example, that abortion is often an ethically-suspect action that is a p--s poor substitute for responsibility, and that we would like to see very few of them performed. They focus on prohibition only, and never on prevention, education, and the like. When you consider that prohibition doesn't work, it makes the sane man ready to give up and check into the rubber room.

I firmly believe that if we worked together, we could reduce the number of abortions by 75 percent in just a few years without prohibition. We could reduce the levels far below what they would be WITH prohibition. But the anti-abortion people just aren't interested in that. They're only interested in pursuing a strategy that we already know doesn't work. And they're willing to divide the country to do it.

How about a response from the other side and we call it quits?

j

I agree we'd be far further ahead attacking the social and economical causes that lead to one choosing an abortion.

Prohibition hasn't worked reducing the incidents of anything else, so I don't know why one would think it would lead to a reduction in abortions. In fact the prohibition on drugs most likely leads to an increase in abortion. Money that could be spent on treating people is used to lock them up with no help for the root addiction problem. It also leads to single mother's in poor financial conditions, which are more likely to choose an abortion, because the father is in jail.