Science told: hands off gay sheep

[madnak]

I don't like overblown political terms in general, but especially when it's implied they denote medical procedures.

[Skidoo]

The term "pro-choice" came out of the canard machine, as if anyone would be against choice, thereby misdirecting the issue, as it were.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Vhawk,

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion is just an unfortunate, but necessary, side-effect of the vulnerability and dependency of human fetuses

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what medical procedure is an abortion a side effect of(please don't confuse miscarriage w/ abortion)? I think you have some real misconceptions about exactly what an abortion is.

[ QUOTE ]
But if I WAS against designer babies, I could certainly still be ok with abortions, and remain consistent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying you think you can be againsts "designer babies" and for abortion on demand and remain consistant? Or are you saying you can be against "designer babies" and for abortions only when the life of the mother is threatened and remain consistent?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said it was a side-effect of a medical procedure. I said it was a side-effect of the vulnerability and dependence of fetuses. Anyone has the right to refuse to help or participate in any sort of medical situation. The baby cannot force the mother to carry it, nor can you force me to give you my kidney, regardless of how badly you need it OR HOW PAINLESS AND RISK-FREE THE PROCEDURE MAY BE FOR ME.

Of course, your objection may be that the mother entered into an implied contract by conceiving and is therefore responsible for the child. Which definitely doesn't apply in cases of rape, and I think I could make a fairly strong case it doesn't HAVE to apply ever.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi Vhawk,

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion is just an unfortunate, but necessary, side-effect of the vulnerability and dependency of human fetuses

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly what medical procedure is an abortion a side effect of(please don't confuse miscarriage w/ abortion)? I think you have some real misconceptions about exactly what an abortion is.

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a point, vhawk. You're one of the most ignorant posters here regarding medical knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is payback from the other thread where I agreed with someone that you were a useless troll, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[madnak]

Vengeance is mine!

[vhawk01]

Importantly, I don't think it matters in any way whether the mother's life is at risk. Abortion is still ok. The only gray area is in very late-term situations, where it is at least possible that the baby can simply be removed without killing it. Luckily, in these situations, the mother, nearly 100% of the time, chooses to simply deliever the baby through C-section or even vaginally. The majority of partial-birth abortions occur in situations where the fetus would almost certainly not live under any circumstance, such as severe hydrocephalus, or other birth defects. These tend to be hyped up by anti-abortion groups.

But I will admit, this is the only real area of concern for me. If a fetus is 9 months old and healthy, and the mother for some reason decides she simply will not deliver it and wants an abortion...its tough. I'd probably have to abort, but I would think it was really sad that this woman waited so long, and caused so much extra suffering. Similar to how I feel when women decide they simply cannot abort a child with severe birth defects, and so allow it to come to term, suffer hours, days, weeks or months of agony, and then inevitably die. But, thats their choice. Just as I cannot force them to abort when I certainly would prefer it, I cannot force them to deliver when it seems the avenue which causes the least suffering.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think you will be able to get a concrete answer to this type of question because objectively measuring defective and advantageous can be very difficult.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Tolbiny

For the sake of argument, lets say the determination of defective or advantageous amoung humans is something that is subjective(fyi thats not my position). Who gets to decide what gets "corrected" and what doesn't.

Suppose its possible to cure kleptomania in the womb by the mother simply wearing a patch. Would you prevent her from doing so? I think most people wouldn't. They veiw stealing as immoral and curing a person of a predisposition to comit immoral acts would be a beneficial accomplishment.

Now back to curing homosexuality in the womb. Many, many people in the country veiw homosexuality as being immoral, many more people veiw it at least as being a flaw. In this society if a parent wishes teach a child they are raising that homosexuality is immoral, its their right. If they wish to cure their child of a predisposition towards immoral behavior its also their right.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Stu,
I intentionally left out my views on genetic selection in the womb in this thread because the point of yours that I wanted to address was that I felt your approach to determining what was normal and not (or more specifically what was a defect or not) was flawed. I didn't want to end up debating two things at once so I left half of the conversation out.
I don't have children of my own (my first niece/nephew is due in mid march) and I understand that my own beleifs will likely face a severe test when my own kids are actually (or potentially) at stake.
In the vague and general sense I believe in individual freedoms and that the parents for the most part should decide on issues like these, I hate government intervention for many reasons, and along with that I believe that one of the ways society progresses is much like evolution- lots of different attempts untill we find one that works fairly well.
On the other hand if your molesting and beating your children I'll join in the angry mob that takes them away from you. This contradiction is hard for me to solve, and where and when to apply it is also difficult. I oppose abortion itself in general but also oppose infringing on a person's individual decisions. These are stances I am still very unsure of and have yet to take a real stance on in the past few years. So the short answer is i don't know what the line is that i would start objecting to people using genetic engineering to alter their children, but my guess is that I will always lean away from granting a third party the power to decide for people.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
The term "pro-life" came out of the canard machine, as if anyone would be against life, thereby misdirecting the issue, as it were.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but both sides are guilty.

[Skidoo]

Fair point.