So, the abortion issue is now back in the limelight...

[∞∞∞]

While the cells are unique to human beings, they haven't connected the dots yet to create consciousness or self-awareness. Pain at a certain point is felt, but it's pain without consciousness (an abstract concept, but not pain in how we react to it). It's a living member of our species as much as any other collection of cells is.

Want to argue the spiritual route because you're religious? I can at least understand that conviction.

But I'm coming from a very sterile viewpoint. I won't give rights to a bunch of (parasitic) cells instead of a fully-developed human who is born, conscious, and protected by the Constitution.

Consciousness or self awareness are not criteria to be a member of the human species. Today you can call it parasitic, but once an artificial womb exists it's no longer that, not anymore than an infant is. It has nothing to do with religion. A bunch of cells that are uniquely human and are in the process, absent negative impact from the outside, of forming into what you recognize as a human body is just the earliest part of the human life cycle. It's science, not religion, driving this.

There is a philosophical difference between ending the life of something which isn't conscious and ending the life of one which is. I have no qualms calling a fetus a member of the human species. I have no qualms calling its termination a homicide because that's what it is.

But it's one of the few forms of homicide which I have no moral issue with. It's part of the woman's body to do what she pleases with and I certainly have no right to tell her what to do with it.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Life is life, period

[∞∞∞]

Additionally, I want to add that this artificial womb technology - while cool to talk about and likely achievable in the future - doesn't seem to be a realistic way to reduce abortions.

Who would take care of the baby into adulthood? Who would pay for the transfer and incubation of the fetus? We already have large amounts of children in the foster care system and not enough people to take care of them (and those in the system have higher rates of being abused, using drugs, getting molested, etc.)

If you want to reduce abortions, we must invest into education, free childcare and healthcare, paid-time off for parents, and other supports for families. Artificial wombs might be a preferable option for some women, but that doesn't make it a useful solution in practice. The best way to reduce abortions is to educate people and make it easier to have children without worrying about the effects on earnings.

Ultimately though, the pro-choice argument is that prohibiting abortion violates the bodily autonomy of a woman. There would be no way to remove an unborn fetus from an unwilling mother without running into this argument. You can believe every woman who didn't want to raise a child would willingly consent to a transfer instead of an abortion, but that's not realistic and you know it.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If you want to reduce abortions you need to bring back personal responsibility and accountability. It shouldnt be easy to fuck tons of dudes then have your life paid for.

[GannonFan]

Additionally, I want to add that this artificial womb technology - while cool to talk about and likely achievable in the future - doesn't seem to be a realistic way to reduce abortions.

Who would take care of the baby into adulthood? Who would pay for the transfer and incubation of the fetus? We already have large amounts of children in the foster care system and not enough people to take care of them (and those in the system have higher rates of being abused, using drugs, getting molested, etc.)

If you want to reduce abortions, we must invest into education, free childcare and healthcare, paid-time off for parents, and other supports for families. Artificial wombs might be a preferable option for some women, but that doesn't make it a useful solution in practice. The best way to reduce abortions is to educate people and make it easier to have children without worrying about the effects on earnings.

Ultimately though, the pro-choice argument is that prohibiting abortion violates the bodily autonomy of a woman. There would be no way to remove an unborn fetus from an unwilling mother without running into this argument. You can believe every woman who didn't want to raise a child would willingly consent to a transfer instead of an abortion, but that's not realistic and you know it.

Exactly my point that this is going to be a real issue going forward. Science says it's a human life, even if it's just a collection of cells. We tolerate abortions today because those cells need the woman's body for a certain amount of time. Once that becomes unnecessary and the artificial womb is the option, then there's no more pro-choice argument - an abortion or a fetus removal to an artificial womb would be the same amount of impact on the woman's body (theorizing here but certainly plausible). So when there's no additional impact on the woman's body, it becomes a matter of arbitrarily ending a life or not. That's always going to end up allowing the life to continue. You don't have a right to decide whether someone who has half of your genes gets to live or not. I don't argue about all of the other stuff - that's the things I'm saying we do need to worry about because we are going to have a lot more unwanted kids and we need to determine how to deal with that.

[Gil Dobie]

Additionally, I want to add that this artificial womb technology - while cool to talk about and likely achievable in the future - doesn't seem to be a realistic way to reduce abortions.

Who would take care of the baby into adulthood? Who would pay for the transfer and incubation of the fetus? We already have large amounts of children in the foster care system and not enough people to take care of them (and those in the system have higher rates of being abused, using drugs, getting molested, etc.)

If you want to reduce abortions, we must invest into education, free childcare and healthcare, paid-time off for parents, and other supports for families. Artificial wombs might be a preferable option for some women, but that doesn't make it a useful solution in practice. The best way to reduce abortions is to educate people and make it easier to have children without worrying about the effects on earnings.

Ultimately though, the pro-choice argument is that prohibiting abortion violates the bodily autonomy of a woman. There would be no way to remove an unborn fetus from an unwilling mother without running into this argument. You can believe every woman who didn't want to raise a child would willingly consent to a transfer instead of an abortion, but that's not realistic and you know it.

If they changed some of the foster care laws, there would be more involvement and more people to take care of the children. Another program that the government messed up. This isn't the solution to this, but it allow more children to be taken care of.

[∞∞∞]

Besides the 500K children already in foster care, good luck trying to find 650K+ families to adopt babies that would be born per year from a ban of abortions. I don't disagree that the system can't be better, but we're not finding that much more than the 135K per year that adopt now. The common sense measure, like anything else in medicine, is an investment in preventative methods.

And Gannon, we're so far apart it's really not worth arguing anymore. While the developed world moves ahead and makes this a non-issue about a woman's bodily autonomy, we're here arguing a hypothetical situation which isn't realistic and acting as if a fetus is somehow equal to a born person. The religious right has really done a number on the United States (let's not pretend this issue isn't driven by them).

In the end you think a fetus has rights and society has dominion on a woman's body. I don't.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Right because you are pro murder we get it, same here.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Gil Dobie]

Besides the 500K children already in foster care, good luck trying to find 650K+ families to adopt babies that would be born per year from a ban of abortions. I don't disagree that the system can't be better, but we're not finding that much more than the 135K per year that adopt now. The common sense measure, like anything else in medicine, is an investment in preventative methods.

And Gannon, we're so far apart it's really not worth arguing anymore. While the developed world moves ahead and makes this a non-issue about a woman's bodily autonomy, we're here arguing a hypothetical situation which isn't realistic and acting as if a fetus is somehow equal to a born person. The religious right has really done a number on the United States (let's not pretend this issue isn't driven by them).

In the end you think a fetus has rights and society has dominion on a woman's body. I don't.

Most people I know that adopt, adopt multiple children.

[GannonFan]

Besides the 500K children already in foster care, good luck trying to find 650K+ families to adopt babies that would be born per year from a ban of abortions. I don't disagree that the system can't be better, but we're not finding that much more than the 135K per year that adopt now. The common sense measure, like anything else in medicine, is an investment in preventative methods.

And Gannon, we're so far apart it's really not worth arguing anymore. While the developed world moves ahead and makes this a non-issue about a woman's bodily autonomy, we're here arguing a hypothetical situation which isn't realistic and acting as if a fetus is somehow equal to a born person. The religious right has really done a number on the United States (let's not pretend this issue isn't driven by them).

In the end you think a fetus has rights and society has dominion on a woman's body. I don't.

So when confronted with a discussion you damn the other side and walk away? That's the problem with politics today, it's the take it or leave it approach. How are we that far apart? Heck, you've already said that the fetus truly is a human being. Nothing religious about that, that's just science. That's a pretty big leap for you. Of course, now you're arguing that we just don't have the resources for these extra human beings so it's fine to dispose of them. Like I said, we're in pretty sketchy moral ground here when we say we're going to end human life because the planet's full already. How do we determine who we should kill off when we cull the herd?

And what's not realistic about this situation? You even said yourself...

I want to add that this artificial womb technology - while cool to talk about and likely achievable in the future

. Are you so far apart with yourself that it's really not worth arguing anymore??

[89Hen]

it's her body.

Nope

[89Hen]

If you want to reduce abortions, we must invest into education, free childcare and healthcare, paid-time off for parents, and other supports for families. Artificial wombs might be a preferable option for some women, but that doesn't make it a useful solution in practice. The best way to reduce abortions is to educate people and make it easier to have children without worrying about the effects on earnings.

Ultimately though, the pro-choice argument is that prohibiting abortion violates the bodily autonomy of a woman. There would be no way to remove an unborn fetus from an unwilling mother without running into this argument. You can believe every woman who didn't want to raise a child would willingly consent to a transfer instead of an abortion, but that's not realistic and you know it.

One great paragraph followed by the same old, tired schtick.

[89Hen]

a woman's bodily autonomy

Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it might magically come true?

[89Hen]

In the end you think a fetus has rights and society has dominion on a woman's body. I don't.

See, you just can't help yourself. You nailed the first part and the second is completely unnecessary and in fact, untrue.

[∞∞∞]

a woman's bodily autonomy

Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it might magically come true?

It's already true based on laws, court decisions, UN declarations, etc.

There's no magic involved here.

[89Hen]

Are you hoping that if you say it enough times it might magically come true?

It's already true based on laws, court decisions, UN declarations, etc.

There's no magic involved here.

So was slavery.

[Ibanez]

If you want to reduce abortions you need to bring back personal responsibility and accountability. It shouldnt be easy to fuck tons of dudes then have your life paid for.

I agree. Men need to have safe sex and take responsibility for their actions.

[∞∞∞]

If you want to reduce abortions you need to bring back personal responsibility and accountability. It shouldnt be easy to **** tons of dudes then have your life paid for.

I agree. Men need to have safe sex and take responsibility for their actions.

Alpha lives with a revisionist history thinking Americans back in the day were a superior life form. Those people were no better or worse at responsibility, accountability, or anything else. Human intelligence and emotions haven't changed for thousands of years, and certainly not within a short period in one nation. The only difference between early Americans and us are the advances of material science and technology.

[Grizalltheway]

It's already true based on laws, court decisions, UN declarations, etc.

There's no magic involved here.

So was slavery.

Quick, bring up the Holocaust!

[89Hen]

So was slavery.

Quick, bring up the Holocaust!

No need. Lots of things were at one time legal and commonplace. Fortunately smarter people figured out not everything legal should always remain legal.

[CAA Flagship]

So was slavery.

Quick, bring up the Holocaust!

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

If you want to reduce abortions you need to bring back personal responsibility and accountability. It shouldnt be easy to fuck tons of dudes then have your life paid for.

I agree. Men need to have safe sex and take responsibility for their actions.

Women 70%-30% men.

They are the ones crying about most of this and they have more skin in the game so its more their responsibility.

They dont get to have it both ways

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

So was slavery.

Quick, bring up the Holocaust!

Never happened, its Jew propaganda

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Trip you're making this harder than it has to be. A simple "I don't care" after people point out that abortion is murder is all it takes to end the debate.

I'm pro-abortion, and I don't care that it is murder.

See, easy. You're welcome.

[Ibanez]

I agree. Men need to have safe sex and take responsibility for their actions.

Women 70%-30% men.

They are the ones crying about most of this and they have more skin in the game so its more their responsibility.

They dont get to have it both ways

Sent from the 19th Century

fify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk