With today's medical technology, a fetus could survive outside the womb after the second trimester. WOW
Quite clever giddy. I was giving "Ashes" that message as he doesn't know me and I don't know him. But I know you and how you are. If you can keep going on and on about your view, you will, lol.
Yes, I believe that as technology changes, our opinion of what is and isn't possible with medical procedures should also change. For example, we no longer practice bloodletting, leeching, and many other ineffective medical procedures that were once commonplace because science has told us there is a better or more effective way. It is my opinion that once we have the technology to remove a fetus from the womb, then incubate it to term, that is the point at which it would be viable to ban abortion in favor of another medical procedure that recognizes the right of the woman to choose whether she wants to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term. It is interesting that you don't see it that way.
Yeah, I guess I should just acquiesce when someone disagrees with me.... :grin: You know, this is not a monologue; I am dialoguing with people here-- yourself included. Had no one argued with my point, I would have only had to make one post. But that didn't happen. Fine. So it's a conversation. As they say, "It takes two to tango."
Why should possible matter with regard to technology? How about the human value of a life at stake? Does that not outweigh our fascination with our "toys?"
of course it does Moon's logic was blown to bits, and at this point, he's just arguing because of his extreme bias.
Good Grief! What an amazing post! Sort of went ALL OUT didn't you. Very interesting. Not sure I agree that Obama is less "liberal" that JFK or Clinton, but you do illustrate how difficult it is to put people into labels which are always changing. My observation was written about in a column by I believe Maureen Dowd a year or two ago. Not certain it was her but close.
You know what's funny is 50 years ago, cml750 would have probably been a southern Democrat that would have supported the New Deal Coalition. Name calling in politics is laughable. The modern economic platform of the original party didn't come from the South. It was a product of the formerly Republican Northeast and the product of the large business and banking community that made up the Republican Party. It was the rich North that pushed a platform of tax cuts and spending cuts to extract wealth from the poorer South that fought against that (and was able to due to the very diverse New Deal Coalition) Unfortunately, Republicans parlayed anger against the end of segregation into a hatred of government. (After all it was government that took away the South's right to discriminate) The New Deal Coalition was after all made up of a ton of groups that didn't agree with each other on anything but economics. You had African Americans in the North working with racist politicians in the South. You had intellectuals and scientists forming a coalition with some of the least educated Americans in the South. But with the end of the segregation, the Southern part of the coalition basically quit and when the Republican Party started embracing a more conservative social agenda, they slowly chipped away at the South. (in exchange for losing the North since the conservative social agenda did terribly up there) And now the Republicans are essentially playing both sides and have been for sometime. Complaining about government spending while reaping the rewards of New Deal era programs. The South has consistently been the biggest beneficiary of government spending while the North has been burdened the most. It's why the North traditionally complained about government spending since they didn't benefit from it at all. Yet today, the Republicans get to complain about it but simultaneously benefit from it. It's why farmers in the midwest decry government spending but are begging for a crop relief package due to the drought. And when polled about it, they say there's no hypocrisy. Which part of makes me wish the Republicans just won control of the government right now and actually implemented their terrible agenda. They got away with it during the Bush years because they inherited a phenomenal economy but I'd like to see them try that again in this economy.
I don't believe it is "life" until the mother decides to use her uterus to bring the fetus to term and bear it.
You don't have the ability to refute my logic, as previously proven, and seeing you comment about bias makes me go... HO HO HO
I don't understand your position. It is not a life until the woman wants to give birth? It should also be pointed out that you used the word "mother" which would implies the existence of a child.
Huh? So the mother's choice now determines if it is a life or not? That child was growing in her before she even became aware of it. What about those women who go well into the second trimester or perhaps even go into labor not knowing they are pregnant?
In my opinion, yes. The woman has the ultimate right to choose whether to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term. Therefore, until she makes that choice, it is a fetus in her uterus, not an independent life being brought into the world. Since this entire line is a semantic argument, I used a term that everyone would understand. A woman who has decided to bring the fetus to term would say "I am going to be a mother" while a woman who has decided against may not refer to herself that way. I chose to use simple language as I was limited for time.
Yes, a woman chooses whether that fetus becomes an independent life. Until the fetus can be nurtured outside the womb, it is the woman's choice. The fetus is growing INSIDE THE WOMAN'S UTERUS and she has the ability to choose whether to use her uterus to bring a fetus to term. On a personal note, I believe that a woman should make the choice as soon as possible, I don't think it should stretch into the second trimester and I would be OK with a ban on any abortion where the fetus would be viable outside the uterus.
