Rhester, just really want to see where you are at here. If you leave a fertilized egg from the above alone 100% of the time it will die. So would you outlaw fertility clinics, make the donors have to carry all fertilized eggs to term, freeze them until medical science finds a way, or what? After all these are genetically unique cells that will likely become a human if all means are taken (proper treatment, implanting in a capable women, proper care post, etc). So I guess if a 15 year old is raped you would be against the provision for delivering the abortion pill within the week of the event? Mind you this is well before the embreyo, if there is one, has any organs, brain waves, digits, face or other human-like charactersitcs and can best be described as microscopic cells with a unique genetic code. I agree. But you have a hard time convincing me a fertilized egg in a clinic is a person. Just because cells off my body might be able to be cloned into a person doesn't mean those cells are a person. And I don't understand the genettically unique argument, biological twins are not genetically unique but no one would consider them less than a full human. My perspective on the rights of a fetus/embreyo/unborn baby depends some on viability (be able live under standard care), which clearly comes later, and even more are their reasonable human like condition (thinking, feeling, having organs, face, limbs, etc).
So you're saying that they should be able to have an abortion as long as they preform it themselves??? Spoiler I know you aren't really saying that. The joke made me do it...
I would. Just because someone is the product of rape, I don't think that means they deserve to be killed. The emotional trauma it could cause the rape victim is less than death, IMHO.
And what about fertilized eggs in a clinic like the question I posed to giddyup. Is it just once it is implanted in a women it is a person with a right to life under all circumstances or is it a person once the sperm fuses with the egg in a petri dish?
I saw a figure that close to 60% or 70% of fertilized eggs don't 'take' and become pregnancies, but rather are flushed out by the 'usual methods'. It strikes me as incongruent that people don't even mention this much larger source of terminated pregnancies. How would one view these?
NO, THEY ARE NOT WEAK IN THE LEAST! The point is that a woman is strong enough, smart enough, and ultimately more qualified than anyone else to decide what happens within their own body. The whole point is that they HAVE free will and ought to be able to excercise it within their own morality. Your morality does not and should not matter to them because it is their decision, not yours. They do. The ones who choose to have and raise the baby face consequences, the ones who have a baby and put it up for adoption face consequences, and the ones who choose abortion face consequences. One of the wonderful things about living in the "land of the free" is that we can choose the consequences we face as a result of our decisions. That is what happens to a person with free will who lives in a free society. They get to make their own decisions and the most fundamental choice is what happens in your body. You have no right to deny someone the choice that is rightfully theirs. I believe that there is a massive difference between the financial burden placed on a father and the lifetime that the mother faces. I believe that the man's choice ends at ejaculation. The woman has more options as what happens from then on out occurs in her body. What happens from then on out is her choice. I believe that the man should have some input but that ultimately the choice is hers. And nobody has the right to take that choice away. We need to teach our young men that you NEVER have sex without a condom unless you are trying to have a baby or are in a long term committed relationship. We need to teach our young women the same thing. We need to teach them about backing up the condoms with sponges and spermicides. There is so much about sex that is not taught universally that I cannot give a comprehensive list in this post. If we have effective and complete sex education early in life so that we can reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. If ALL of us pool our resources and efforts, we can impact the problem at its root without taking choices away from women.
Fertilized eggs in a clinic should be given all of the protections of a human life. I oppose the creation of fertilized eggs that are not going to quickly be implanted into a mother though.
Sorry I've been busy with other stuff like work and being depressed about the Rox and the end of the Bagwell era to get to this thread. I'm still reading through it and will weigh in when I get to the end. Its good to know I'm missed though.
I'm still reading through this but had to respond to this point. So what if he wants to spend his money on having her have an abortion? If you say the man has a say then that say could be to have an abortion.
Where I am at is a very simple place. I believe when a woman gets pregnant there is a moral responsibility for the BOTH the mother and father to make whatever sacrifice is necessary to protect and commit to the reproductive process and give a life, a family and a future to the person they concieved. That is all for me. It is called love. As far as fertilized eggs in a clinic? I haven't thought about it or tried to place it in that context. I don't know what I think about that, it doesn't seem to me to be relevant to what I stated above in the context of the abortion problem. I am not trying to judge when human life takes place (for me the issue is more about love, responsibility and value of human births), the ethics of fertilized eggs in clinics or cloning. I am simply against a man and woman having sex, the woman becoming pregnant and then making a choice to not be responsible for their actions and choosing to kill the unborn baby for the quick way out. For me a mother giving live birth to a baby is good. A mother losing the baby naturally (miscarriage) is not good. Deliberately killing the baby is evil. Lot's of people define what makes an unborn baby, 1 day, 2 days, 3 months, 1 minute before live birth. It is so simple for me. If a mother is pregnant she is carrying an unborn living child until she gives birth. Then she is caring for a born baby. Both actions acheive the same result- life for the baby- whether in the womb or the crib the baby can't survive without responsible care and love. The mother is the primary caregiver from conception till maturity. I believe there are three disctinct individuals in pregnancies- the mother, the unborn baby and the father. The mother and father have a responsibility to the unborn baby- protect and provide. The unborn baby is an innocent third individual that is being stripped of its humanity and fundamental right to life. That's all.
andy -- i've avoided posting in this thread like the plague. you and i have been through this time and time again. and i point this out every time. i'm still not sure your response. you speak very grandly of a woman's right to choose. her choice. her body. but even you see limits on that. isn't it still her body when the baby is in the third trimester??? isn't it still her body when the baby is in the second trimester?? you can't talk absolutely about rights here. because you're not affording absolute right to women. because somewhere inside, you know that something doesn't link up. that the logic fails at some point. that a growing organism, with its own separate DNA structure...is not merely the woman's body. you're willing to acknowledge that past the first 3 months of pregnancy, from what you've said here. but on the last day of month 2, a woman has absolute right over her own body? i'm sorry, but that logic just falls short with me.
The honest to goodness "line" for me is viability. Once the fetus is viable and could survive outside the womb, it deserves protection. That is relatively late in pregnancy and as such, agreeing to ban those instances (I think someone posted earlier that third trimester abortions accounted for 0.1% of all abortions) is nothing more than lip service. Thus, I would propose a compromise in which I agree to come off of my "line" by 12 or so weeks as I ask for the pro-lifers to come off of their "line" by roughly the same amount of time.
So you admit . .you a hypocrit You hold men to a higher standard to the poor weak victimized woman who laid down with the man . . consentually at the same time and made the same choices but you allow her to WALK AWAY unscathed [I mean . . folx allow women to just drop a kid off at the Fire Station . . no muss no fuss] Interesting . . . never knew . . now i know . . . Rocket River As Long as Abortion is legal . . then Child Support is a Sham of Hypocrits If one is responsible for a child from Conception [men] then .. so should the other. . . [women] otherwise . . .Hypocracy
I don't see "hypocracy" at all. The woman has more options available to her as everything that happens after ejaculation happens in her body. Everyone has the right to choose what goes on in their own body, man or woman. The man has the ability to take measures to protect his pocketbook from child support payments and that choice must be made before he leaves his seed in the woman. After that, the choices are entirely hers as it involves things that happen in her body, not his. Men have the same options that women have when choosing to have sex. If they do not want to pay for child support, they need to avail themselves of these options.
It will probably be a bit before we start visiting as the baby is prolly a bit too young yet, but we are looking at options.
I'm still reading through this thread so pardon me if someone has already commented on this. I've heard you make this argument before that since we protect endangered species of animals it makes sense we should protect fetuses. The problem is that we also eat and kill for sport many other animals too. In fact not that timberwolves have come off the endangered species list there's a lot of talk about reopening timberwolf hunting. So yes its true we protect many animals but comparing human fetus' to animals I don't think is a comparison that helps your cause. If anything it further dehumanizes that which you are arguing is human.
