[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xenu:
If it was murder, anti-abortionists everywhere would be phoning the police to file charges.
They don't for a very good reason - they know it's not murder.

Or it could be because it's not against the law.

Nice logic there bub.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I hope you get pregnant.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[dcmacdaddy]

Legally it is not murder. (unless you count late-term abortions in certain states.)
Socially/Culturally many people think it is murder.

Whether or not it is murder is irrelevant to me. I have stated, and will continue to do so,
that I think a woman's right to control her own body trumps any right to existence of a
fetus she might be carrying.

All of you who want to outlaw abortion, don't try and convince us here, go to your state
legislators, go to your member's of Congress, tell them you think abortion should be made
illegal. Let them know how you feel. Tell them you want to work for a Constitutional
Amendment to outlaw abortion. See what happens. As it stands now, the only way to
outlaw the practice of abortion is to make an amendment to the Constitution outlawing
the practice, so go out there and do it.

I will be opposing you every step of the way and one of us will win. I'm not sure which
side of this argument would win but going through the process to achieve our ends is
what's most important. Making the effort to try and get out voices heard. So get out
there and make it happen. Work to make abortion illegal . . . if you can.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I hope you get pregnant.

Hmmm... haven't I made it clear that I am male?

And I know I have mentioned that my wife is currently pregnant.

I would welcome the ability to get pregnant! I see what my wife is capable of and am in awe. A life. Inside you! Amazing!

I have one child and another on the way. I want to have 2 more after that too. Unfortunately I think this is our last.

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You say that like it's a bad thing.

My thoughts exactly.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or it could be because it's not against the law.

Nice logic there bub.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
All of you who want to outlaw abortion, don't try and convince us here, go to your state
legislators, go to your member's of Congress, tell them you think abortion should be made
illegal. Let them know how you feel. Tell them you want to work for a Constitutional
Amendment to outlaw abortion. See what happens. As it stands now, the only way to
outlaw the practice of abortion is to make an amendment to the Constitution outlawing
the practice, so go out there and do it.

I will be opposing you every step of the way and one of us will win. I'm not sure which
side of this argument would win but going through the process to achieve our ends is
what's most important. Making the effort to try and get out voices heard. So get out
there and make it happen. Work to make abortion illegal . . . if you can.

Actually, the solution lies in the Supreme Court. Get intelligent judges on there and we will see a reversal of the decision.

Roe v. Wade was decided based upon a lie. Anyone know what it was?

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Actually, the solution lies in the Supreme Court. Get intelligent judges on there and we will see a reversal of the decision.

Roe v. Wade was decided based upon a lie. Anyone know what it was?

Something to do with substantive due process?

But I agree, it should be a State issue, not Federal. I f*cking hate the federal gov't. They never get anything right

[zerostar]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Get partisan judges on there and we will see a reversal of the decision.

Fixed.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zerostar:
Fixed.

You mean replace the current partisan judges?

Everyone is partisan.

I wouldn't trust an "independent".

[zerostar]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Everyone is partisan.

I wouldn't trust an "independent".

These 2 sentences together don't make sense.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by zerostar:
These 2 sentences together don't make sense.

Yes they do. Think it through. One word at a time.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Actually, the solution lies in the Supreme Court. Get intelligent judges on there and we will see a reversal of the decision.

Roe v. Wade was decided based upon a lie. Anyone know what it was?

Umm, impugning the intelligence of Supreme Court justices is NOT the right way to make your point.

The justices who permitted abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade are no more nor no less intelligent than those who would preside over a decision outlawing abortion. You need to divorce your emotions from your logic if you want to be taken seriously.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Umm, impugning the intelligence of Supreme Court justices is NOT the right way to make your point.

The justices who permitted abortion with the decision in Roe v. Wade are no more nor no less intelligent than those who would preside over a decision outlawing abortion. You need to divorce your emotions from your logic if you want to be taken seriously.

So you think the decision was unanimous? Read.

It can be overturned.

The judges on the court at the time were partisan against life. They did not respect the stance that people have a right to life.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
So you think the decision was unanimous? Read.

It can be overturned.

The judges on the court at the time were partisan against life. They did not respect the stance that people have a right to life.

Where in my post did I state, or even imply, I thought the original decision of Rove v. Wade was unanimous?
And where in my post did I state, or even imply, that it can't be overturned?
Certainly the Supreme Court can issues a decision overturning the decision it made in Rove v. Wade.
In a previous post I argued that the best way to outlaw abortion is to get it enshrined into the Constitution.
Nowhere did I say that I thought it was not possible for the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision.

However, you are still impugning the judges by calling them partisan against life.
You do realize that if the current Supreme Court over-turns Rove v. Wade it will be doing so--by your logic--because it is now partisan towards life.
Which is still an imputation against the character of the court: Are you okay with that?
(impugning the character of the court even though it is in regards to a decision you would approve of?)

Do you respect the Supreme Court unconditionally or only when it issues decisions with which you find favor?

[xenu]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Or it could be because it's not against the law.

Nice logic there bub.

Nice to know that you can see the obvious.

Anti-abortionists will continue to claim it is murder though.

[xenu]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
You should really get familiar with the discussion-technique to present a case from different point of views without making the one or the other to oneself's opinion.

Whatever I said in point 1 represents the view of the conservative solution, and if executed it would probably work, and it is indeed morally and religiously supported, or don't you think that restricting sex to marriages is morally and religious supported? It is, and that's the point the conservatives are making as conservatives are mostly also religious people.

What I said in point 2, the not morally and not religious but scientifical, secular solution would work as well as point 1-solution in preventing the killing of unborn babies.

Taliesin

You need to find a new name - I doubt the original would be as confused as you. I suggest you re-read what you wrote. You agreed with statement 1, but not with the the others. Indeed, the tone of your post suggested that you definitely disagree with point 3.

Perhaps in future, you should qualify your statements if you don't want people to assume they are you opinion.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by xenu:
Nice to know that you can see the obvious.

Too bad you didn't.

Anti-abortionists will continue to claim it is murder though.

I wouldn't expect them to lie to themselves. I mean come on.

I hope you aren't saying you can prove it isn't murder.

Because you can't. Can't prove it is either.

NO ONE knows when life truly begins.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by xenu:
You need to find a new name - I doubt the original would be as confused as you.

Nice try, but it would really help you if you just admitted that you read my posting completely wrong and get over it. It's not a shame to be wrong once, but it's one if you insist on it out of pride.

Originally posted by xenu:
I suggest you re-read what you wrote. You agreed with statement 1, but not with the the others. Indeed, the tone of your post suggested that you definitely disagree with point 3.

Oh, trust me, I've reread my posting just to be sure, and you're still wrong about it. But you're right about number 3, yes I'm against number 3-solution, the current situation, as my goal in the posting was to find a solution against the killing of pre-born babies, and I think number 1 and number 2 would work equally well, the societies have just to decide which way they want to go, the open, free-sex, secular way or the "only in marriage"-allowed sex, the religiously supported, the conservative way. Maybe there should be made some form of democratic vote on the topic for every society.

Originally posted by xenu:
Perhaps in future, you should qualify your statements if you don't want people to assume they are you opinion.

Maybe I should, but then where would be the fun?

Taliesin

[Athens]

you know to be honest I couldnt really care less about Abortion. What people decide to do to there families is there problem. Myself I would never want my wife/gf to have a abortion. Thats all that matters to me. There are much worst things in this world I rather focus my attention on such as cancer, hiv, and other medical problems that cause great suffering to otherwise healthy people. And mass starvation in other countires. A baby might not get a chance to live but what about young children who have been born in places like Africa that are starving to death who are in no doubt pain and aware of the fact they need food and don't have any. Those are the bigger issues for me.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Baby is the wrong word to use. Baby implies a fully developed fetus. In reality what is being destroyed are merely zygotes and primitive embryos.

You're just playing semantics. 'fetus' means 'baby' in Latin.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Something to do with substantive due process?

But I agree, it should be a State issue, not Federal. I f*cking hate the federal gov't. They never get anything right

Considering this question of abortion deals with what many people consider to be human life or at least something sacred, this should not be a federal or state issue. This should be an issue discussed at the international level as it concerns all humanity: not just a particular state.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You're just playing semantics. 'fetus' means 'baby' in Latin.

No it doesn't, it means offspring in latin.

And in english:

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SVass:
Those who oppose abortion support the death penalty.

Wrong, pro-life here, anti death penalty which is the sentence given to Schiavo.

Those who oppose abortion oppose hiring lawyers for the accused.

Huh???

Those who oppose abortion oppose allowing defendants from having witnesses for their defense. (Why can't Moussaoui question a man whose testimony is quoted in his indictment?-The sixth amendment gives him this ABSOLUTE right!)

Where in God's name are you snipping this crap from???

Those who oppose abortion want Schiavo kept alive but they don't want to pay for her treatment.

There's approximately $15 million on the table to Michael from various sources for giving custody over to her family. Several prominent doctors and therapists see what can be done for Schiavo and have offered their services free of charge and believe me, there'd be $15million more donated for her care.

They oppose the lawsuit her husband used to collect the damages that have paid for her treatment.

$750,000.00 of which $50,000.00 has been used in her care. To qualify; room and board. Not one dime on rehabilitation came from that fund. Quick, cremate the evidence! This is nothing more than the attempt to cover up a crime.

They want to cut Medicaid that is continuing to pay for her treatment. (Why don't they support Universal Health Care?)

You sure you don't mean; decrease of the level of annual increase in Medicaid funding?
Universal Health Care is the compassionate answer to the medical problem in this country??? This an example of hypocracy??? Universal Health Care is a dismal failure my friend. You'll likely be first in line of those on 18 month waiting list for your assembly-line treatment. C'mon, please try to make sense. Please.

Those who publicly oppose abortion are hypocrites trying to distract our attention from their crimes. (Delay, Bush, etc)

Publically oppose abortion and I don't think an occasional ticket for speeding constitutes the type of crime you're supposing. You've truly put the ass in SVass on this one bra'.

every bit of data/encoding necessary for the complexity of human life exists in the "tail" of that human zygote. That data does not exist in the other embryos illustrated.

[Busemann]

Originally posted by budster101:
Arent' the same idiots, (not in here, well, some I'm sure) stating that fish have feelings

All animals have feelings, no?

Wrong, pro-life here, anti death penalty which is the sentence given to Schiavo.

It is a body without a brain which is not looking at recovery, and has been for the past 15 years. Why treat the concept of death as something abnormal?

every bit of data/encoding necessary for the complexity of human life exists in the "tail" of that human zygote. That data does not exist in the other embryos illustrated

That can be said about sperm as well

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally posted by Taliesin:

After all that's what sexual intercourse is for, to get pregnant, to become mother and father, to produce a baby.

AND

3. The last solution is the one currently in use by most european and other states, namely to simply kill unwanted preborn-babies and to leave everything else like it was.

Taliesin

Quoting Richard Feynman: Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.

Your last point (number 3) I seriously disagree on. There is in general very good sexual education in Europe. Maybe you were thinking of Alabama?

[stupendousman]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Actually, the solution lies in the Supreme Court. Get intelligent judges on there and we will see a reversal of the decision.

Roe v. Wade was decided based upon a lie. Anyone know what it was?

That "Roe" was a poor, raped pregnant women who had no choice in her pregnancy and needed to have a legal option so that she wouldn't have to have the rapist's offspring.

In reality, "Roe" got pregnant via consentual sex and simply wanted rid of the child because it would be an inconvience.

...back to the subject:

Late term abortions of BABIES (arguing based on location is purely semantical) happen all the time and is legal in most instances simply based on convenience.

Also, abortions of human life which could live outside it's mother happens all the time.

Both situations should be against the law.

If you are basing it on the "scientific" method we currently determine for life/death (measurable EKG/heartbeat) then it's hard to imagine that you aren't killing human life via abortion when you have one into the second trimester.

..then we get into the entire hypocritical and nonsensical entity that is "choice", but that's another debate.

The point is, that the court INVENTED a constitutional right to abortion. THERE IS NONE IN THE CONSTITUTION. None...ZERO...Zilch...NADA. You've got to invent it and that's what the courts did. Otherwise, according to the Constitution, it's the right of individual states to determine its laws.

[macintologist]

Why did this thread become an abortion thread when my first thread had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with the implications of fetal complexity?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Why did this thread become an abortion thread when my first thread had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with the implications of fetal complexity?

Are you being serious? Is that why the thread title is "Abortion isn't murder - bilogical reasoning".

I guess I just didn't read it correctly.

You're a moron if you think anyone would come away from that without thinking this thread isn't about "abortion".

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
That "Roe" was a poor, raped pregnant women who had no choice in her pregnancy and needed to have a legal option so that she wouldn't have to have the rapist's offspring.

In reality, "Roe" got pregnant via consentual sex and simply wanted rid of the child because it would be an inconvience.

Perfect! Pro-choice groups like to gloss over this, but I feel any court decision decided upon a lie given during testimony should be reviewed and possibly thrown out.

Originally posted by stupendousman:
...back to the subject:

Late term abortions of BABIES (arguing based on location is purely semantical) happen all the time and is legal in most instances simply based on convenience.

Also, abortions of human life which could live outside it's mother happens all the time.

Both situations should be against the law.

More common than most people think. And if a person ever saw a diagram or pictures of the body parts after you would know it's murder.

Originally posted by stupendousman:
If you are basing it on the "scientific" method we currently determine for life/death (measurable EKG/heartbeat) then it's hard to imagine that you aren't killing human life via abortion when you have one into the second trimester.

..then we get into the entire hypocritical and nonsensical entity that is "choice", but that's another debate.

The point is, that the court INVENTED a constitutional right to abortion. THERE IS NONE IN THE CONSTITUTION. None...ZERO...Zilch...NADA. You've got to invent it and that's what the courts did. Otherwise, according to the Constitution, it's the right of individual states to determine its laws.

Exactly.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by stupendousman:
That "Roe" was a poor, raped pregnant women who had no choice in her pregnancy and needed to have a legal option so that she wouldn't have to have the rapist's offspring.

In reality, "Roe" got pregnant via consentual sex and simply wanted rid of the child because it would be an inconvience.

She is also now an avid pro-lifer. The Pro-Death people never mention the lies or truth when that trial comes up.

She claims she was pawns for lawyers with agendas, when she just wanted rid of the kid.

The whole thing still haunts her.

[Lazytime]

Originally posted by Nick:
Just because something has "potential" means nothing. There is infinite potential for human lives to be created. If your parents didn't have you, that potential would have gone to waste. Does that mean a person was killed? No.

I think you have said it best

[macintologist]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Are you being serious? Is that why the thread title is "Abortion isn't murder - bilogical reasoning".

I guess I just didn't read it correctly.

You're a moron if you think anyone would come away from that without thinking this thread isn't about "abortion".

Nobody has discussed fetal complexity. All the posts are just copies of the posts from other ordinary abortion threads.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Nobody has discussed fetal complexity. All the posts are just copies of the posts from other ordinary abortion threads.

Yes we did. I said abortionists will use "any excuse to kill a baby".

Edit: added "use" to show athens that there is an "edit" button.

[Athens]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
Yes we did. I said abortionists will "any excuse to kill a baby".

Dont mind me but what does "any excuse to kill a baby" supose to mean. It is a incomplete sentance. Did you mean "use" in that sentence?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
No it doesn't, it means offspring in latin.

And in english:

Broadly speaking, 'fetus' means offspring. Words though in Latin have very broad meanings and the most proper English translation should be determined by context.

The sense in context of a human is 'baby'. When you are speaking in context of animals, it means 'fawn'. e.g. from Lewis & Short ' quae bestiae multiplicis fetus procreant' in which the sense is definately a fawn. In context of a plant, in means fruit. Latin is a very flexible language, words more often than not have more than one meaning!

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Lazytime:
I think you have said it best

Prolifers however don't say that a fetus is potential human life, if it were 'potential human life' then we won't even consider calling the death 'murder'. We say it IS human life. There is no 'grade' of humanity as all beings are equal whatever their state. Just because a fetus can't feel pain or has not developed complex cognitive abilities, does not make it less than a human than say an adult. In the same regard, just because someone is in a vegetive state does not make that person less human.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Athens:
Dont mind me but what does "any excuse to kill a baby" supose to mean.

Is this a question? I looks like a question, but it has the wrong punctuation at the end.

Originally posted by Athens:
It is a incomplete sentance.

What's a "sentance"?

Originally posted by Athens:
Did you mean "use" in that sentence?

Huh? Did you mean to type "Did you mean to use "use" in that sentence?"?

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Prolifers however don't say that a fetus is potential human life, if it were 'potential human life' then we won't even consider calling the death 'murder'. We say it IS human life. There is no 'grade' of humanity as all beings are equal whatever their state. Just because a fetus can't feel pain or has not developed complex cognitive abilities, does not make it less than a human than say an adult. In the same regard, just because someone is in a vegetive state does not make that person less human.

Well said.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by undotwa:
We say it IS human life. There is no 'grade' of humanity as all beings are equal whatever their state.

oh yeah. i could have sworn people treat animals and other "beings" like sh1t all over the planet while espousing to "moral perfection"...

the bottom line is, you (fig.) don't and never will get to determine when and where (human) life starts or ends. if abortion is murder (for the reasons you stated) then so is masturbation (and no, no OTHER sperm can produce a human being)...and i don't think you (not fig.) would want to draw the line there.

eventually "life itself" transcends everything, and by that token there are very very few true "pro-lifers" on this planet (and i am 100% sure they would rather err on the side of human dignity, than on the side of a morbid obsession with "judgementalism"/"hypocracy").

[Athens]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Prolifers however don't say that a fetus is potential human life, if it were 'potential human life' then we won't even consider calling the death 'murder'. We say it IS human life. There is no 'grade' of humanity as all beings are equal whatever their state. Just because a fetus can't feel pain or has not developed complex cognitive abilities, does not make it less than a human than say an adult. In the same regard, just because someone is in a vegetive state does not make that person less human.

In my eyes its potential human life because not all fetus's become babies and not all babies are born alive.


What gets me is its ok to use technology to prolong a life, to help a life to become born but we cant use technology to prevent a life or to terminate a life. Why dont we just forget technology and let everything be 100% natural. Sure there will be more dead babies, more dead mothers, and people that suffer increadable injuries will prob die too but it would be 100% natural and 100% gods will.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Prolifers however don't say that a fetus is potential human life, if it were 'potential human life' then we won't even consider calling the death 'murder'. We say it IS human life. There is no 'grade' of humanity as all beings are equal whatever their state. Just because a fetus can't feel pain or has not developed complex cognitive abilities, does not make it less than a human than say an adult. In the same regard, just because someone is in a vegetive state does not make that person less human.

A fetus is only a potential life. This is a fact. While I'm not taking up any sides in the pro life/pro choice debate, I will speak against lies, misrepresentation of facts, wishful thinking and ignorance of life.

People in vegetive state are dead, when the CNS has been damaged beyond repair. It is that simple. We may be human but we are not our mortal bodies. The "art" of keeping someone "alive" by feeding through tubes, by breathing with the assistance of machines.. it isn't much of an accomplishment. It simply demonstrates the body can function without a concious or even working CNS if you mechanically replace the things that relied on the CNS. Let nature take its course. Death is part of life. That has got to be accepted, especially by those of us who believe in God and eternal life.

Look: I can make you (fig.) fly by holding you up in the air.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Busemann:
That can be said about sperm as well

Really? Are you sure about this??? Busemann; you're scaring me.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by macintologist:
Why did this thread become an abortion thread when my first thread had nothing to do with abortion, and everything to do with the implications of fetal complexity?

"All I said was 'abortion isn't murder-biological reasoning' ". Why did this become an abortion thread??? you kill me macintologist, you really do. Implications of fetal complexity using pictures of various fetus' and asking which ones are human. Hmmm. feeble argument Macintologist. You'd be hard-pressed to see the difference between an asterisk and a period in 5-font macintologist, it doesn't mean they aren't quite different.

We're trying to clone people while justifying the elimination of the original. She blinded me with science doot-doot-doot...She blinded me? WITH SCIENCE!!!

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm trying not to get into this debate, but I have a question for both sides:

Is it possible to take a fetus from a woman who won't be able to raise it in a loving environment and implant it into someone who would? Basically, as I understand it, the pro-choice mother doesn't want to be tortured physically for 9 months and then emotionally for 18 years, and the pro-life meddler doesn't like the idea of letting something die that s/he believes is like them (be it because of a notion of "humanity" or because of "christianity"). So can't we kill two birds with one stone by just transferring the zygote/fetus from the pro-choice party to the pro-life one? Or failing enough people to volunteer for that (don't blame them!), some kind of artificial incubator? Of course, it would be necessary to also find a surrogate family to raise all these extra children...

So how about it? Technical observations? Motivational ones? Would this satisfy both sides in your opinions or just further enrage them?

And since I noticed the issue was raised in this thread that men are here trying to impose their wills on this debate while at the same time claiming they can't participate physically...I believe it would be technically possible to transplant a fetus to a man's body. The placenta etc comes from the fetus, not the mother, and it does the extracting of nutrients from blood. You would need to do a C section of course, and I don't know what you'd do about stretch marks and excess skin afterwards, maybe plastic surgery. Anyway, thoughts?

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
And since I noticed the issue was raised in this thread that men are here trying to impose their wills on this debate while at the same time claiming they can't participate physically...I believe it would be technically possible to transplant a fetus to a man's body.

[macintologist]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You'd be hard-pressed to see the difference between an asterisk and a period in 5-font macintologist, it doesn't mean they aren't quite different.

Actually...



The difference is pretty apparent.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Uncle Skeleton:
I'm trying not to get into this debate, but I have a question for both sides:
Basically, as I understand it, the pro-choice mother doesn't want to be tortured physically for 9 months and then emotionally for 18 years, and the pro-life meddler

Welcome to the debate. First of all, a woman who doesn't want to be tortured physically for 9 months and then tortured emotionally for 18 years isn't going to be a mother at all. The way she views pregnancy and child-rearing; thank God. I also hope you have no children or at least children with access to your browser who happen to frequent MacNN. They may find it disheartening to know their existance sucks so bad for you. Secondly, pro-lifer's aren't meddlers. There have been plenty of pro-lifer's in line at adoption clinics who end up having to go to China to adopt. Pro-lifer's see the taking of life for nothing more than inconvenience to be kind of sickening.

doesn't like the idea of letting something die that s/he believes is like them (be it because of a notion of "humanity" or because of "christianity"). So can't we kill two birds with one stone by just transferring the zygote/fetus from the pro-choice party to the pro-life one? Or failing enough people to volunteer for that (don't blame them!), some kind of artificial incubator? Of course, it would be necessary to also find a surrogate family to raise all these extra children...

Can't we close our legs or are all abortions the result of rape? I mean, since we're suggesting the most proposterous ideas here, let's just stop having irresponsible sex. I think that makes more sense afterall.

So how about it? Technical observations? Motivational ones? Would this satisfy both sides in your opinions or just further enrage them?

no, but telling them to quit spreading their legs for nameless faceless people they can hardly spend more than two hours with let alone raise a child with would.

And since I noticed the issue was raised in this thread that men are here trying to impose their wills on this debate while at the same time claiming they can't participate physically...

They've already participated physically, that's part of the problem. Half I'd say. Actually, statistically the primary will of men is to have the woman get an abortion. I wish my fellow mankind would quit trying to impose his will on women that would otherwise be open to giving birth. A higher percentage of men support abortion than do women which is strange considering how much torture women have to go through.

I believe it would be technically possible to transplant a fetus to a man's body. The placenta etc comes from the fetus, not the mother, and it does the extracting of nutrients from blood. You would need to do a C section of course, and I don't know what you'd do about stretch marks and excess skin afterwards, maybe plastic surgery. Anyway, thoughts?

Sure. Tell ya what, if both parties stop having irresponsible sex with people they have no desire to be with long-term, neither party would have to worry about excess skin after childbirth, childbirth in general, STD's, broken hearts, C-sections, and stretch marks. You have an idea, but mine makes much more sense.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Well I'm glad someone finally responded in a serious way, but I'm afraid you forgot to answer my question, which I guess was a little muddled so here's a more concise version:

To the pro-life person: "would you still object to the practice that is now abortion if instead of terminating the zygote it was instead transferred into your womb (for women) or intraperitoneal cavity (for men), then you were to raise the child afterwards?"

To the pro-choice person: "would you still object to laws that forbade terminating your zygote if instead they mandated transplanting it to another person to be raised as their own?"

But for completeness:

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Welcome to the debate.

Thank you, very nice of you.

...isn't going to be a mother at all.

Ok, replace "mother" with "incubator" then.

I also hope you have no children

No, I don't have a family, which is why I wanted to stay out of the debate. I do understand the arguments of both sides (even if I am leaning towards one over the other), and I was hoping to steer the debate (here or nationally, whatever, eyes on the prize) away from all the useless bickering and towards looking for an option that would appease both sides so we can move on with our lives. Or failing that, towards letting both sides see the problem from a new perspective, a little role reversal.

let's just stop having irresponsible sex.

I do believe that is the root of the pro-choice angst. The fact is, you can't legislate morality. It doesn't work for underage drinking, it doesn't work for drug use, and it would never work for sex. Sex is a biological function, perhaps the most powerful one, and you can't just force people not to do it. Just try changing the name of the movement from Pro Life to Anti Sex and see how many people stay on the roster.

Actually, statistically the primary will of men is to have the woman get an abortion.

I won't deny that some women are pressured to have abortions by their partners, but that is an entirely different issue. But it really highlights the pro-choice argument: women shouldn't be forced to kill their fetus' (fetii?) by their partners, and they shouldn't be forced to have children by the state. It should be their decision what to put their own bodies through.

You'll notice that the above argument does not need to be about killing, if only we could address my first question...transplantation.

I wish my fellow mankind would quit trying to impose his will on women

It's not my style to gloat, but this is too ripe to pass up. So I'll just leave it to the reader to know what I mean and say this. If what you're worried about is men making women have abortions, make the debate about those men, not about the women's option to have the procedure at all.

Tell ya what, if both parties stop having irresponsible sex with people they have no desire to be with long-term...

Sex is an important part of human psychology, and there's a lot more to it than reproduction. If you try to force people to abstain from it, you're going to have a lot of psychologically damaged people.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Pro-lifer's see the taking of life for nothing more than inconvenience to be kind of sickening.

Can't we close our legs or are all abortions the result of rape? I mean, since we're suggesting the most proposterous ideas here, let's just stop having irresponsible sex. I think that makes more sense afterall.

I am more than comfortable with my habit of taking the life of bacteria for my own convenience. The life of an only slightly more developed creature with no significance in the world doesn't worry me a whole lot more, regardless of what its chromosomes may look like. I'm all for safe sex, but it's not because I care about the helpless little embryos.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I am more than comfortable with my habit of taking the life of bacteria for my own convenience. The life of an only slightly more developed creature with no significance in the world doesn't worry me a whole lot more, regardless of what its chromosomes may look like. I'm all for safe sex, but it's not because I care about the helpless little embryos.

Are you honestly trying to compare a developing human to bacteria?