Another question for those supporting abortion

[traillius]

Hello.
If anyone pro “choice” reads this, please respond.
If scientific proof of the life, personhood, and individual humanity of embryos, zygotes, and fetuses were established, beyond scientific doubt, would this change your opinion regarding abortion?

 

[ceciliatherese]

Hello.
If anyone pro “choice” reads this, please respond.
If scientific proof of the life, personhood, and individual humanity of embryos, zygotes, and fetuses were established, beyond scientific doubt, would this change your opinion regarding abortion?

individual humanity of embryos, zygotes, and fetuses have already been established beyond scientific doubt, but it’s impossible to scientifically prove that z\e\f\s are persons, since that’s a philosophical thing, not a scientific thing.
Also, many pro-choicers do know that the z\e\f is a human being (they’re not ignorant of basic biology) but that’s not where their argument is. Their argument is, regardless if it’s a person or not, does it have a right to stay in the woman’s body, without her consent, unlike any born person would ever be allowed to do?

 

[BillP]

Here’s question for you Traillius, if medical science advanced to the point where a fertilized egg, could be safely removed from a uterus and raised to full term, then born, would you then accept a woman’s right to undergo such a procedure?

Would you support society at large accepting responsibility for raising the children that would result?

 

[traillius]

Here’s question for you Traillius, if medical science advanced to the point where a fertilized egg, could be safely removed from a uterus and raised to full term, then born, would you then accept a woman’s right to undergo such a procedure?

If such a procedure prevented further deaths of any humans, preborn or otherwise, I would support it, if medically necessary. Of course rights come with responsibilites. I expect the woman to shoulder all possible financial expense, or the insurance, whatever. The arithmetic would need to be worked out.

Would you support society at large accepting responsibility for raising the children that would result?

Would I support a charitable institution helping to defray the cost of such a procedure. Yes. would I support society at large being forced to support such a procedure financially. I wouldn’t like it, but I more accept tax dollars spent on that procedure than I would for those dollars to be spent on the murder of unborn babies.

 

[BillP]

f such a procedure prevented further deaths of any humans, preborn or otherwise, I would support it, if medically necessary. Of course rights come with responsibilites. I expect the woman to shoulder all possible financial expense, or the insurance, whatever. The arithmetic would need to be worked out.

So women can end her pregnancy in a way that doesn’t impact the well-being of the baby,** but only** if its medially necessary and if she takes financial responsibility?

That about cover it?

 

[traillius]

Yes.

 

[traillius]

Also, many pro-choicers do know that the z\e\f is a human being (they’re not ignorant of basic biology) but that’s not where their argument is. Their argument is, regardless if it’s a person or not, does it have a right to stay in the woman’s body, without her consent, unlike any born person would ever be allowed to do?

Again if they say yes the e/z/f is a person, then under the law, life cannot be taken unless the person is duly convicted of a capital crime by a jury of his or her peers. They cannot have it both ways.

 

[rpp]

Yes.

Traillius, I agree with your answer to BillP’s question. But I think his question is bait.

Only I would add that I already financially support groups that help defray the cost of raising children, whether they are adopted or not. The principal organization that does this is called the Catholic Church.

 

[fix]

Here’s question for you Traillius, if medical science advanced to the point where a fertilized egg, could be safely removed from a uterus and raised to full term, then born, would you then accept a woman’s right to undergo such a procedure?

No. That would be an abuse. The child has rights.

Would you support society at large accepting responsibility for raising the children that would result?

We do now.

 

[ceciliatherese]

Again if they say yes the e/z/f is a person, then under the law, life cannot be taken unless the person is duly convicted of a capital crime by a jury of his or her peers. They cannot have it both ways.

I didn’t say they believe they are persons, I know no pro-choicers who do, I said they believe they’re human beings, but not persons.
They believe that a woman who does not want to be pregnant can remove the fetus from her body because it is living off of her resources, even if it is death for the fetus, because no born person has the right to do that.

 

[ceciliatherese]

I didn’t say they believe they are persons, I know no pro-choicers who do, I said they believe they’re human beings, but not persons.
They believe that a woman who does not want to be pregnant can remove the fetus from her body because it is living off of her resources, even if it is death for the fetus, because no born person has the right to do that.

and that’s the question that many pro-lifers can’t answer.

 

[rpp]

and that’s the question that many pro-lifers can’t answer.

I am not certain that the word “can’t” is appropriate in that sentence. “Can’t” mean unable. “Won’t” seems more appropriate as it mean a refusal. Other than that, spot on!

 

[JimG]

I didn’t say they believe they are persons, I know no pro-choicers who do, I said they believe they’re human beings, but not persons.
They believe that a woman who does not want to be pregnant can remove the fetus from her body because it is living off of her resources, even if it is death for the fetus, because no born person has the right to do that.

“Living off of her resources,” indeed, and will continue to do so for the next 18-21 years, or longer! Shall we allow abortion up to age 18?

 

[ceciliatherese]

“Living off of her resources,” indeed, and will continue to do so for the next 18-21 years, or longer! Shall we allow abortion up to age 18?

I’m not arguing in favor of abortion, I’m just telling their position, from what I know from talking with them.
the fetus and mother relationship, though, is the only relationship where a human being has to rely solely on it’s mother and her body’s resources to survive. other human beings can’t do that, and therefore, they think they have the right to remove it from their body, even if it means killing them. I honestly don’t know where I stand on this issue, as I’ve never heard a compelling argument against this.

 

[rpp]

I’m not arguing in favor of abortion, I’m just telling their position, from what I know from talking with them.
the fetus and mother relationship, though, is the only relationship where a human being has to rely solely on it’s mother and her body’s resources to survive. other human beings can’t do that, and therefore, they think they have the right to remove it from their body, even if it means killing them. I honestly don’t know where I stand on this issue, as I’ve never heard a compelling argument against this.

I think you have to check your brain at the door to buy into this argument.

 

[BillP]

So what do you all make of laws that permit mothers of newborns to surrender their babies within a certain period of time after birth no questions asked?

My question wasn’t “bait” at all. I am trying to explore the potential for protecting both the rights of the mother and the fetus.

We already permit mothers with unwanted (by them) babies to put them up for adoption, what if medical science could move that date up a bit. Imagine a day when a pregnant woman could go to clinic, have the fetus removed and implanted into either an artificial womb, or even into a adoptive mother, who could then carry the pregnancy to term and give birth.

Wouldn’t that solve the entire problem? The biological mother wouldn’t have an unwanted child, the adoptive parents could have a child they had bonded with throughout the process of pregnancy. Even the Church would be happy because the Child would be conceived in a natural way (i.e. No IVF).

 

[st_lucy]

I didn’t say they believe they are persons, I know no pro-choicers who do, I said they believe they’re human beings, but not persons.
They believe that a woman who does not want to be pregnant can remove the fetus from her body because it is living off of her resources, even if it is death for the fetus, because no born person has the right to do that.

I would argue with someone who would attempt to us this kind of reasoning that if they looked at any genocide that has taken place you would see the same argument. We as human tend to rename the truth so that we wont feel so guilty of what it is we want done.

In Rwanda the Tutsi where called snakes and cockroaches. The Nazi’s called the Jew a rat. We “modern” civilizations tend to think of ourselves as being more intelligent and so we throw around the name fetus as if it meant something that is sub-human. When no matter how we try to change the name or the sound of the name we cannot change its essence which is in fact human.

This is why abortion is absolutely no different then any other genocide that has taken place. We may “think” that we are more advanced but in actuality we are doing the same thing to the unborn as the Nazi’s did to the Jew’s, the Japanese did to the Chinese, the Hutu did to the Tutsi and so on. The so called “modern” and “advanced” civilization we live in is no better then any of these, we have fooled ourselves just as they did into thinking another group of people are not our equal and so then can be horrifically killed.

 

[fix]

So what do you all make of laws that permit mothers of newborns to surrender their babies within a certain period of time after birth no questions asked?

My question wasn’t “bait” at all. I am trying to explore the potential for protecting both the rights of the mother and the fetus.

We already permit mothers with unwanted (by them) babies to put them up for adoption, what if medical science could move that date up a bit. Imagine a day when a pregnant woman could go to clinic, have the fetus removed and implanted into either an artificial womb, or even into a adoptive mother, who could then carry the pregnancy to term and give birth.

Wouldn’t that solve the entire problem? The biological mother wouldn’t have an unwanted child, the adoptive parents could have a child they had bonded with throughout the process of pregnancy. Even the Church would be happy because the Child would be conceived in a natural way (i.e. No IVF).

That is a question for a moral theologian. I would guess it would be illicit unless it was done when the mother has a pathologic condition that will not allow her to continue the pregnancy. In that case the medical treatment would be assisting the naturtal process, not replacing it. Otherwise, it seems to be illicit as one would intentionally want to replace gestation for no therapeutic reason.

Just my opinion and I could be very wrong.