Pinning Down Pro Choicers Position On Incubator Advances

[David Sklansky]

We have touched on this subject before but I don't think I have ever pinned it down. Most pro choicers agree that present day abortions should be restricted to fetuses that can't survive, even with help, outside the womb. Does that mean that the allowable age should decrease as technology advances? If so do they think there is a limit to this decrease?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Most pro lifers agree that present day abortions should be restricted to fetuses that can't survive

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe most pro-lifers agree that abortion should only be allowed in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.

Perhaps you wanted to pin down the pro-abortion folks?

Stu

[David Sklansky]

oops

[m_the0ry]

I am pro-choice, and I don't think the cutoff point can be determined by any amount of rhetoric or obfuscated conjecture about how the fetus may or may not survive outside of the womb.

Rather the right to terminate one's own offspring is a natural and fundamental one, as demonstrated by the numerous studies on the animal kingdom on infanticide (Jane Goodall, etal). Further it is an evolutionary mechanism, that can necessarily prevent putting all eggs in the first basket that happens to come along.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
I am pro-choice, and I don't think the cutoff point can be determined by any amount of rhetoric or obfuscated conjecture about how the fetus may or may not survive outside of the womb.

Rather the right to terminate one's own offspring is a natural and fundamental one, as demonstrated by the numerous studies on the animal kingdom on infanticide (Jane Goodall, etal). Further it is an evolutionary mechanism, that can necessarily prevent putting all eggs in the first basket that happens to come along.

[/ QUOTE ]

My original question therefore does not apply to you.

[vhawk01]

I think your original question applies to me, as my position on abortion is really more a position on the right of anyone to refuse to cooperate in the development of a fetus or to be forced into any medical procedure. What this usually means, for me anyway, is that a woman has a right to REMOVE the fetus at any time, up until birth, but not to specifically kill it. If she can remove it without killing it, at the same cost/risk, she must do that (and then have no obligation to said fetus forever more). So, yeah, its dependent on medical technology.

[Stu Pidasso]

I'm pro-life in substantially every instance. So you can't really pin me down.

However that being said, I think its silly for pro abortionist to use ex utero viability as the defining line of when an abortion should be allowed and when it shouldn't. By establishing such a line one is admitting that a fetus has right to exist that supercedes the right right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body. Drawing such a line makes the case for the opposition.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your original question applies to me, as my position on abortion is really more a position on the right of anyone to refuse to cooperate in the development of a fetus or to be forced into any medical procedure. What this usually means, for me anyway, is that a woman has a right to REMOVE the fetus at any time, up until birth, but not to specifically kill it. If she can remove it without killing it, at the same cost/risk, she must do that (and then have no obligation to said fetus forever more). So, yeah, its dependent on medical technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

That stance defeats the purpose of abortion. The purpose of abortion is to prevent a specific potential person from becoming a specific actual person. Women want abortions because they do not want to care for and raise a child. States allow women to get abortions because the do not want to care for and raise a child.

Stu

[Leaky Eye]

Where does that progression stop? If technology becomes available that allows us to incubate the egg once it has been fertilized and begun cell reproduction is anyone who is now pro-choice going to suddenly defend the rights of those two cells?

I think the standard of surviving on its own is one of convenience. It saves people who don't believe a zygote is a person from having to define the exact moment a human is formed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think your original question applies to me, as my position on abortion is really more a position on the right of anyone to refuse to cooperate in the development of a fetus or to be forced into any medical procedure. What this usually means, for me anyway, is that a woman has a right to REMOVE the fetus at any time, up until birth, but not to specifically kill it. If she can remove it without killing it, at the same cost/risk, she must do that (and then have no obligation to said fetus forever more). So, yeah, its dependent on medical technology.

[/ QUOTE ]

That stance defeats the purpose of abortion. The purpose of abortion is to prevent a specific potential person from becoming a specific actual person. Women want abortions because they do not want to care for and raise a child. States allow women to get abortions because the do not want to care for and raise a child.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL no.