You are overstating this matter. Having the same right to life is not exactly equating. You are just trying to trivialize the language. A child in utero is different from a third-grader is different from a college kid is different from a brand new CPA is different from a hedge fund manager is different from a retiree playing bingo in Coral Gables. In many ways, none of those are equal but in their essential humanity, they are equal.
Thank you. Yes, I like to when we can engage the issues without personal attacks. I'm very blunt because I think p***y-footing is what got us to where we are today... which is a great tragedy.
And thus, not considering, acknowledge the necessary role of the carrier as anything other than someone that must carry to term is extremely simplistic and is treating the carrier more as a machine (or worse) than as a human being. BTW, if it happens, it would be some body finding a way to duplicate the very complicated conditions and processes needed to host an embryo to term. I wouldn't rule it out. And it certainly would be interesting, that once that is scientifically possible, if the religious folks would allow it to happen knowing that it could be used as an alternative to abortion.
No, my language is designed to accurately describe a zygote, fetus, or embryo rather than use inaccurate descriptors like "baby" or "child," when those terms are dishonest. No, it is simply inaccurate. The status in my mind has to do with viability. Nice lip service, too bad that's all you've got. The current environment is far better than having the state compel a woman to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. Don't get me wrong, it could be MUCH better, but the problem is that pro-life people feel the need to fight against pro-choice people rather than using their energy, time, and money to do things which would ACTUALLY reduce abortions, unlike a paper ban.
Except that you can't adopt a child with a known father without that father's consent. If the woman doesn't want ANYTHING to do with the father, perhaps because he is abusive, an abortion may be the only viable choice for her. This anecdote would be but one of millions of situations that we can't foresee or make exceptions for, thus providing a reasonable justification to allow the woman to decide on her own. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term is a far worse State intrusion than allowing her to abort, particularly if the abortion occurs early.
As I have stated, I believe that if abortion is the choice, it should be made as early as possible. No, I don't take random video from CNN, MSNBC, Fox, or YouTube as evidence of anything. Provide a written article and I'll be happy to read it.
No, they're not. They are very, VERY different and the fact that you can't understand this simple fact is a big part of the reason you are hopelessly biased on this topic.
I have said many times in these discussions that I would be OK with banning abortions once there is a way to extract the fetus and artificially incubate it to term. For me, the problem comes in when the State compels a woman to use her uterus, artificial incubation would solve that issue for me.
To the carrier, it may seem exactly like an infection, that is part of the reason you don't get to impose your moral code on another person. You simply don't have the benefit of their perspective.
Random? Hide much? Keeping it remote and clinical on paper. Face up to what you are supporting! There's an ugly reality there.
I have no illusions about the reality, it is certainly ugly, but just as necessary that women keep the right to choose.
See, I wouldn't even say this is a solution. You would still have a huge problem finding enough people to adopt the millions that wouldn't have been aborted. It makes me sound mean and cynical, but there are certain instances where it's better for everyone involved (society included) when a couple flatly rejects offspring. It's a cold truth. Bear in mind, this is ONLY when they feel they wouldn't be worthy parents.
Posting this here rather than starting a new thread. I'm guessing this goes eventually to the USSC since there are different rulings for different states. http://news.msn.com/us/judge-ala-abortion-clinic-law-unconstitutional Judge: Ala. abortion clinic law unconstitutional BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AP) — An Alabama law restricting doctors at abortion clinics is unconstitutional because it would unduly hamper women's ability to obtain the medical procedure, a federal judge ruled Monday. U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson, in a 172-page opinion and an accompanying order, said state lawmakers exceeded their authority when they passed a law last year requiring doctors at abortion clinics to have hospital admitting privileges. Thompson extended an earlier order blocking enforcement of the law and said he would issue a final order after considering more written arguments from lawyers. "This case is not closed," Thompson wrote. The decision came days after a federal appeals court blocked a similar law in Mississippi. Susan Watson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said the law wasn't designed to protect women, as supporters maintain. "Major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, oppose them," she said of the Alabama law and similar ones. In a statement, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said he disagreed with the ruling and would appeal after Thompson issues a final order. Clinics in Birmingham and Mobile run by Planned Parenthood Southeast and the Montgomery clinic operated by Reproductive Health Services filed the lawsuit, saying they would have to close because they use out-of-town doctors without admitting privileges and have been unable to get local doctors with privileges to serve their clinics. The state's other two clinics, in Tuscaloosa and Huntsville, use local doctors with admitting privileges. The law's sponsor, Republican Rep. Mary Sue McClurkin of Indian Springs, said the measure would make the clinics safer, while clinic operators said it was an attempt to shut them down through a regulation they could not meet. Thompson agreed with the clinics. In his opinion, Thompson said evidence showed doctors wouldn't be able to gain admitting privileges in Birmingham, Mobile and Montgomery, the state's three largest cities, should the law remain in place. Two doctors who perform abortions in Montgomery live in Nigeria and Chicago and couldn't meet residency requirements and other rules set by hospitals, Thompson said. Similarly, two Georgia doctors who travel to Birmingham and Mobile to perform abortions also couldn't meet the requirements for staff privileges in those cities, he said. "The resulting unavailability of abortion in these three cities would impose significant obstacles, burdens, and costs for women across Alabama ..." he wrote. New doctors are unlikely to begin performing abortions in the state because of the "detrimental professional consequences" of being associated with procedure and a history of violence that includes bombings, shootings and arsons against clinics, the judge said. Similar laws have been blocked by federal courts in Kansas and Wisconsin, while they have taken effect in Missouri, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah. Two of Alabama's five licensed abortion clinics are temporarily not performing abortions, but not because of the physician requirement. Planned Parenthood Southeast closed its Birmingham clinic in January after firing two employees for selling an abortion medication to a person in the clinic's parking lot. The clinic has replaced its staff and plans to resume services after an inspection by state health officials. Alabama Women's Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville closed in late June because it couldn't comply with another part of the 2013 law that took effect July 1. It requires clinics to have wide halls and doors and improved fire safety systems like a surgical treatment center. The Huntsville clinic is trying to move to a new location that meets the requirements, said Brian Hale, attorney for the state Department of Public Health. The Department of Public Health reports that 8,485 pregnancies were terminated in Alabama in 2013, with 16 done at hospitals and the rest at abortion clinics.
For that matter such technology is likely to be very expensive and I doubt many would be willing to pay the tab for artificial incubators to bring unwanted children to term. For that matter a government run incubator program is the stuff of far right nightmares. The only practical way to end abortion is to make sure that every pregnancy is wanted. That means improved access to contraception and programs that make it easier to raise children.
Colorado teen birthrate drops 40% with low-cost birth control http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/10/health/colorado-teen-pregnancy/
It is truly amazing how much impact ubiquitous, low cost/free birth control could have on abortion rates. It seems crazy that the people who fight against access to birth control also seem to be pro-life.
If you are about not allowing birth control, then you aren't about protecting life of a baby, you are about pushing your religious beliefs onto others.
You could be, too. The life of the baby is the life of the baby, regardless of what long odds it beat to be conceived. The fact of its life stands alone and apart. Our own Will Saletan on the subject: http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/15/do_pro_lifers_oppose_birth_control_polls_say_no.html "At a minimum, 78 percent of all respondents who said abortion was morally wrong also said that birth control was morally acceptable. What was that again about pro-lifers doing their best to control other people? About making women face the consequences of sex? About objecting to a woman’s right to make medical decisions in private? About wanting to see women suffer?"
