Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

You may have, but it seems you didn't read the rest of my post. If you did, my bad. I meant it as merely to argue his view on the subject, but at the same time see the view of others as well.

Oh, ok...I see what you mean. He already knows the answer to his question, but wants to argue his side anyway? For some reason, I cannot help but sympathize with males on this subject. The last time there was one of these converstations, I read a very interesting phrase...viable artificial wombs...kind of has a ring to it...not sure who wrote it, but you guys should seriously get to work on that one, if you ever want to have a say in these matters.

The very strong opinions indicating that every human viable fertilized egg be coddled to produce a live human being whatever the feelings of the people who created it has not, so far in this thread confronted the problem created by in-vitro fertilization. When multiple eggs are fertilized as potential implants and one is chosen to mature in the womb of the mother the very many rejected eggs are routinely destroyed as no one has the desire nor the means to encourage them to complete their possible development. I am interested in what proponents who are horrified at abortions would do with these rejected fertilized eggs. They have great potential for use in stem cell research but the Bush administration forbade that so this wonderful resource was merely flushed away. This seems to me a terrible waste but it seems to have made anti-abortionists quite happy.

In vitro involves the implant of multiple eggs, to ensure at least one takes. Sometimes all of them take, which is how you see women having litters; but the usual course of action in this type of situations is to destroy some of them to allow a better chance of proper development for one or two.

Like fathers can have sympathy pains, morning sickness, and can even lactate, is that what your getting at? If you argue that case then it could be said that the father could feel the same pain and even the same emotions of an abortion that the mother feels. Not al fathers have these things though, so like abortion in itself it's purely circumstantial.

No, not at all. I am getting at the fact that men do not have the right to choose if they do or do not want to be a parent once conception has occurred. Women have this choice, men do not. I think this is what philosopherboi may be getting at too.

Ah, once again, my bad. I misinterpreted what you said. lol
I do get what you are saying though, and agree with you completely.

Stem cell research could save many lives... but Republicans don't care about any of that.

The disgust I feel for politicians on both sides of the aisle arises not only from their lack of backbone on crucial public issues but also from the public they respond to to maintain their offices. Assumedly officials in office act to the best interest of the public but after all it is the public opinion that drives their votes for measures and the basic responsibility for problems must, at end, lie with the public who will maintain them in office.

I believe there are something like 600'000 embryos destroyed each year. To my mind this is a disgusting waste of embryonic stem cells and the potential they hold to cure many ailments

I presume the pro life lobby would call this a disgusting waste of human life ?

I have no idea. I always thought it was up to the In vitro recipients to decide what is to be done with their left over embryos. I am pretty sure I once heard about a couple getting a divorce and having a custody battle over embryos in a lab...but I have never really understood all of that.

Edit: When I wrote that response to Sand, I was talking about embryos being destroyed inside the mother when too many have successfully attached. I guess it really should be up to the tissue owners if they would like to donate unsued embryos to research. I am not sure it would bother me, but I can understand how some people might have a problem with that.

^ finally the laws have changed in the US and these embryos can now be used for research. Prior to this the religious lobby stop it.

No. The woman not only bears the child (with some pain and discomfort) but also bears all the mortal risks associated with childbirth. The father may have some claim to taking part in the upbringing of the child, but the birth of the child and the continuation of the pregnancy is the woman's call.

ruveyn

A newborn infant does not have enough brain mass and neural interconnection to be a proper sentient person. The genome of an infant is all human. Its capability is subhuman.

Humans are neonates. Because of the limited diameter of the vaginal opening, human infants must be born before their heads become too large. That is why relative to the adult state, humans are the most undeveloped of the mammal at birth. A human infant does not achieve sentient status for at least six month post partum, does not walk until about a year post partum. A newborn horse foal is capable of standing and walking hours after its birth.

Humans are the smartest of the mammals, but they do not have sufficient brain mass to be human-smart for more than a year post partum. It is only in the second year that most humans acheive what makes humans different from the other primates --- speech and conceptual ability.

ruveyn

That makes sense only if there does not exist legal recourse to coerce the father to tend to the offspring.

I can see what you are trying to say philosopherBoi...

True it is half of the man's genetic material, but the fact of the matter is the fetus is in the woman's body. Men have no say what goes on with it. Men do not have to make the lifestyle changes in caring for the fetus, body/health changes and labor pain. Anyone trying to take control of a woman's body is the same as calling her his property, and that just isn't so.