Are you a living being if you have a movie credit?

[Nuc]

Yeah, No1tovote4, if it makes you feel any better, I read your post about the hypothetical situation in which doctors should be required to try and save the fetuses outside the womb. I get it. It sounds like a great problem solver.

Now I got a question. Where's the money going to come from to sustain these testtube babies and who's going to raise them?

Prospective adoptive parents. No1 posted this idea on another thread and it's a good one.

However this would take some science to get done and America is so anti-science at this point it would not get support from the population or the government.

 

[no1tovote4]

Yeah, No1tovote4, if it makes you feel any better, I read your post about the hypothetical situation in which doctors should be required to try and save the fetuses outside the womb. I get it. It sounds like a great problem solver.

Thanks for your sarcasm it is really beneficial to the conversation. At least you finally got around to finding out what my opinion was even though I had expressed it much earlier and you kept insisting it was something else.

Now I got a question. Where's the money going to come from to sustain these testtube babies and who's going to raise them?

There are many people denied the right and who cannot afford to adopt a baby who would be happy to raise these children. The money can be either from the person responsible for the child or from taxes as they are so often spent on such things.

Ok, to the guy saying it's wrong to have free abortion clinics. Obviously, these are for people who can't afford to go to real clinics plus some teens also mostly poor. Would you rather they spend a minute bit of the state's money to get an abortion and be done with it? Or have the baby and spend a ton of the state's money either raising the kid on welfare or having the state raise it in foster homes, also probably on welfare?

I would rather spend money on welfare than on killing the innocent.

To the other guy saying it's the state's right to dictate what goes on in a woman's reproductive system, I still think you're wrong and the law agrees with me.

It does, but that doesn't mean that it cannot change, amazingly laws do that alot. However the assumption that it is only her reproductive system and not an ending to a life is a religious opinion as science tells us that it is a separate being that, admittedly, is still dependant on the mother for life.

Keep 'em coming, I've got a million of 'em.

As do I. This isn't an argument that will be resolved here on this site, but I still think it a better idea (to attempt to save the life rather than have directed action to end a life). This is even with the realization that many of these lives will still end. I think it also has the added bonus of being able to give the mother a choice when the technology makes it so that those lives can be saved rather than ended. To free your wife, your sister, your mother, all women from being forced into childbirth to create new lives.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It does, but that doesn't mean that it cannot change, amazingly laws do that alot. However the assumption that it is only her reproductive system and not an ending to a life is a religious opinion as science tells us that it is a separate being that, admittedly, is still dependant on the mother for life.

Science has nothing to say regarding the "sanctity of life." Sanctity of life is a philosophical/religious idea. All science says is that we're a bunch of cells packed together to make one big organism. Because a baby is attached to its mother until the cord is cut, science would consider the baby to be a group of cells that feed off of its mother or host organism to grow.

And bud, I read your post right after it was posted. But until technology advances to the point to where it is possible to keep a fetus alive outside its mother, it's pure science fiction. Great idea, but not yet possible, like flying cars and stuff.

 

[theim]

So you guys think that society and the government should be able to dictate a personal decision about a woman's body that will control the outcome of her life?

Hmmm, seems kinda totalitarian to me. I think the Chinese do that. And I think Hitler did something like that too. But what do I know right? :huh:

Hitler also ate food. Should we all just starve ourselves?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So you guys think that society and the government should be able to dictate a personal decision about a woman's body that will control the outcome of her life?

Hmmm, seems kinda totalitarian to me. I think the Chinese do that. And I think Hitler did something like that too. But what do I know right? :huh:

So you think a woman should be allowed to murder for conveniewnce? Hmmm. Sounds like something stalin would do.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Hmmm, dictating how a woman should handle her body sounds like something Mussolini would do.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hmmm, dictating how a woman should handle her body sounds like something Mussolini would do.

Forcing pickle slices up your rear would be something Mayor McCheese might attempt on his climb to power.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Eating sushi sounds like something Emperor Hirohito of WWII era Japan would do.

 

[archangel]

I believe that Hag-celine's momma 'threw away the baby and kept the afterbirth' he appears to have little respect for life...must be because his momma had little respect for him...

 

[Hagbard Celine]

HEY! You don't know anything about my momma, so keep it to yourself.

I respect life, but I also respect other people enough to let them make their own decisions. We can't allow for the government to dictate such personal, life altering decisions to us, or we would sacrifice our freedom becoming slaves to the state.

Why do you care so much about a clot of cells in another person's body anyway? You're not performing the abortions, and you don't have to watch it being done, and you don't have to get an abortion if you don't want to. But the option is there for those who don't want to deal with having a kid as it should be.

 

[dmp]

I believe that Hag-celine's momma 'threw away the baby and kept the afterbirth' he appears to have little respect for life...must be because his momma had little respect for him...

How are you going to sit there and bring up somebody's mom in ANY context - especially somebody I'd bet you've never met. Not telling you as an 'admin' - just telling you as a person: Quit sardonic commentary; it's not called for.

 

[dmp]

We can't allow for the government to dictate such personal, life altering decisions to us, or we would sacrifice our freedom becoming slaves to the state.

Are you agaisnt helmet and seatbelt laws? Assisted Suicide?

 

[archangel]

HEY! You don't know anything about my momma, so keep it to yourself.

I respect life, but I also respect other people enough to let them make their own decisions. We can't allow for the government to dictate such personal, life altering decisions to us, or we would sacrifice our freedom becoming slaves to the state.

Why do you care so much about a clot of cells in another person's body anyway? You're not performing the abortions, and you don't have to watch it being done, and you don't have to get an abortion if you don't want to. But the option is there for those who don't want to deal with having a kid as it should be.

because that "clot of cells" is a fertilized egg...the begining of life! Like I said throw away the afterbirth...not the baby...simple...or ya can keep your zipper up or skirt down...abortion should NEVER be used as birth control..if one does not want the responsibility of a baby then just abstain or use birth control prior to engaging in the mutual act of extasy!

 

[archangel]

How are you going to sit there and bring up somebody's mom in ANY context - especially somebody I'd bet you've never met. Not telling you as an 'admin' - just telling you as a person: Quit sardonic commentary; it's not called for.

Sorry...it was not a personal comment..it was a medifore...used quite commonly...ya know like 'yo momma'...lighten up dmp!

 

[Nuc]

because that "clot of cells" is a fertilized egg...the begining of life! Like I said throw away the afterbirth...not the baby...simple...or ya can keep your zipper up or skirt down...abortion should NEVER be used as birth control..if one does not want the responsibility of a baby then just abstain or use birth control prior to engaging in the mutual act of extasy!

It always cracks me up when women say they won't use the pill because they "don't like the side effects". Then they get pregnant (a pretty harsh side effect of not using the pill) and have an abortion. Setting aside the issue of whether or not the fetus has rights, a sexually active women not using birth control is pretty irresponsible. It's the woman's body when it comes time to have an abortion, in their view, but it's the man's responsibility if the woman has a baby. Or society's.

 

[no1tovote4]

Science has nothing to say regarding the "sanctity of life." Sanctity of life is a philosophical/religious idea. All science says is that we're a bunch of cells packed together to make one big organism. Because a baby is attached to its mother until the cord is cut, science would consider the baby to be a group of cells that feed off of its mother or host organism to grow.

First of all, reread my posts and you will find no mention of the "sanctity of life", secondly the fetus is defined by science as a separate life and human life as well. Their DNA will tell you that, denial isn't just a river in egypt. Unlike say cancer where the DNA is the same as the "host" the fetus is a separate human genetically as well as in other well defined ways.

A fetus beyond any doubt at all is alive and a separate entity from the mother as defined by DNA, a separate nervous system, heart, and, however rudimentary depending on the time of development, mind as well. Science does not define the fetus as part of the other being, that is an opinion not based in science.

And bud, I read your post right after it was posted. But until technology advances to the point to where it is possible to keep a fetus alive outside its mother, it's pure science fiction.

The technology would be developed faster through implementation. Yes many of the fetuses would die at the beginning of the burgeoning new science and the result would be much the same as directed death by abortion but in time the results would be much different. It would have the added benefit of a society that does not kill progeny as a goal in any "medical" procedure.

Great idea, but not yet possible, like flying cars and stuff.

I didn't say it was possible as of yet, I said to start it and over time it would give every mother a real choice not that it was a choice for those who want to keep their children right now. However those fetuses that were removed for care that died in the beginning would have been aborted otherwise. Those fetuses would be the beginning of this new science, thechnology would advance, and then, over time, there would be actual reproductive choice for women.

Imagine the effect on their pay as well as on their health overall (one of the main reasons that women usually make less then men is the fact that they take time off to take care of their children thus freezing raises etc and those, like my wife, that stay home lower that average even more). No more Pre-Eclampsia or Eclampsia unless those dangers were taken on by a conscious decision to incubate the baby naturally. No more pregnancy diabetes, unless the conscious decision was made... No rape victim would ever carry a baby naturally unless they were fundamentalists that thought a child incubated out of the womb was bad in some way.

Wow, I can see the many huge future benefits of this already as well as the already large benefit of not actually calling it a "medical procedure" while killing the progeny of humans.

 

[no1tovote4]

Hmmm, dictating how a woman should handle her body sounds like something Mussolini would do.

Hitler was also able to type, you are as much like hitler as those who would dictate how people can treat another life, such as a fetus.

 

[no1tovote4]

Forcing pickle slices up your rear would be something Mayor McCheese might attempt on his climb to power.

:rotflmao:

LOL! Now I have to clean the screen...

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

You've ignored the part where I said, "before it begins." It's totally different from your parents killing you now and you know it.

Why is it different? Because you can't see it or touch it? That's something I've noticed about certain liberals and Democrats. If you can't see it, it's easier to write it off. Well, take a look below.

To me, it is no different. If you have taken the responsibility of creating the life, you should take the responsibility of taking care of the life.

You repeatedly say the government has no place saying people can't do it. Got news for you Hag, it was liberals that got the federal government involved to begin with, not the federal governemnt saying people couldn't do it. Before Roe vs. Wade, it was a state issue. The federal government wasn't involved one way or the other.

You might have a million of them, but they are the same tired arguments we've all heard before. It's easy to make it seem like you make a good case when you completely ignore the bulk of the argument against you.