Better Restated Abortion Question

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it true.

[/ QUOTE ]

You keep saying its false does not make it false....touche.

Why do women have abortions then? Becuase the fetus the woman is carrying is going become a person who will in some way complicate their lives. A woman has an abortion to ensure that person does not come into existance. Any other excuse givin for an abortion is just a sugar coat of the above.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it's part of the equation, but not necessarily the overriding one. Your phrasing suggests that the person deciding to have the abortion is more concerned about the life of the 'potential person' when it is often more about the life of the mother.

I personally am against abortion in most cases, but I don't think it's my place to legislate what a person can or can't do with their body.

[matto]

[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it becomes the case, then I would say that as long as the parents of the "potential person" would still be responsible for the child at the end of the incubation process, then pro-choicer's will claim that it is the mothers decision whether or not it should survive.

On that note, since the fetus would now be separate from the mother's body but still a potential life, I cannot see how the decision could be entirely up to the mother when the mother and father both contributed genetic material and would thus be equally entitled to a choice with the "my body, my decision" line of thinking now nullified. Comments?

[m_the0ry]

Yes.

I am still not sure if you are targeting your question at me and so I'll wait for your response before I type up anything longer than this.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ignore the first one as I was unclear.

If technology advances to the point where even young embryos can be saved after an abortion, will pro choicers claim woman will have the right to tell the surgeons not to save it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it becomes the case, then I would say that as long as the parents of the "potential person" would still be responsible for the child at the end of the incubation process, then pro-choicer's will claim that it is the mothers decision whether or not it should survive.

On that note, since the fetus would now be separate from the mother's body but still a potential life, I cannot see how the decision could be entirely up to the mother when the mother and father both contributed genetic material and would thus be equally entitled to a choice with the "my body, my decision" line of thinking now nullified. Comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[Shoe Lace]

I don't think they have any right if/when that technology comes. It's pretty much no different than saying "I gave birth to my son 34 years ago. It's my body/my choice so I have the right to kill him today".

The only difference is the amount of time that person was alive.

[matto]

Then it comes down to the neverending debate as to whether or not a fetus in its early stages can be regarded as human in the same way that a newborn baby can. Morbid, but it is a central theme in this discussion.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like a semantic nit.

[Shoe Lace]

In this thread there is no difference IMO. We have the technology to bring the extremely young fetus to life guaranteed. The only difference between this fetus and a newborn baby is x amount of time.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My point of course is that many woman who choose to have an abortion disingenously use the argument that they have a right to do what they want with their body, even though their real agenda is that the baby does not survive.

[/ QUOTE ]
hmmm. I have the right to cut my toenails even if you have some super technology that turns them into babies.

seems to me the only issue is the value of the thing you're sticking in the machine (not what comes out).

chez

[Lestat]

*Some* women may not mind putting their body through 9 months of pregnancy because they had too much to drink the night before, but even when *they* seek an abortion, it still has nothing to do with the baby "not surviving". It has to do with not wanting a baby in their life! It's an important distinction.