@ Aias

That's a whole lot of got-nothing-to-do-with-what-we-are-talking-about. However, you did you prove that pro-abortionists go out of their way not to get bogged down in a real discussion about the reality of abortion. The position that allowing abortion in any circumstance and at any time is as extreme as not allowing abortion in any circumstance and at no time. Both positions are dogma, not reasoned belief.

Todd Jackson wrote on 03/14/10 at 12:50:39:


Libertarians For Life argue that:

Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.

Abortion is homicide — the killing of one person by another.

There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

http://www.l4l.org/

Timothy wrote on 03/15/10 at 18:29:37:


Okay, I lied when I said that my last post would be my last say on this.

This is my question to you. What happens if you were a victim of rape or incest and you got pregnant that way? Yea, the arguement isn't plausible when you were forced to have sex.

phoenixgirl wrote on 03/15/10 at 20:21:50:

Swarttica wrote on 03/15/10 at 21:16:14:


Welcome, Swartica!

Eh!  I'm thinking.  I'm thinking.  

A friend of mine used to insist that his cat should not be fixed and should have "the experience of motherhood."  If you count the number of kittens she might bear, figure half of them will be female, and allow them the experience of motherhood, then in a few generations the house will be crawling with cats.  Do the math.

The Chinese figured this out.  They've got their One Child policy.  They go for Malthus, not Marx anymore.

The United States preferred "No Child Left Behind," but more and more of them are--the millions who will not be Bill Gates or grow up to be President.  Do the math and figure out the chances of a happy outcome.

What pro-life dogmatics got us into was a governmental, legislative, medical, scientific, pharmaceutical, bureaucratic nightmare.

Bush imposed restrictions and drove research to China and elsewhere.  Obama lifted restrictions and now nobody knows where they stand.

We've got a bunch of lines of stem cells:  embryos that will never be used because they're the preserved by products of attempts to help "infertile" couples to become pregnant.  You want a child?  Use a fertility treatment.  Use a fertility treatment and you've got lots of stem cells.  Call a stem cell a "person," infertile couples don't get kids because disposing of the extra cells would be "killing a person."  Refuse to create those embryonic stem cells?  Hello, how are you going to cure or treat a lot of curable diseases and conditions in which stem cells are helpful?  Somebody may suffer and die because we don't.  Stem cells derived from other sources may work, but you don't know for sure that they until you use the originals.

Leave it to the dogmatists to untangle this mess and government intervention in science and private freedoms to make this just intractably worse.  It just goes on and on.  Save those cells, kill a "person" who's frozen waiting for a womb.  Don't save those cells, leave somebody paralyzed or in some other situation which needs cells.  Wait till science with its hands tied somehow manages to find alternatives.  Let people die, then, in the waiting room?

Contrary to dogmatists, this is the real situation the moment you declare a fertilized ovum a person and consider its removal an abortion worthy of a murder charge.

It's problematic, it's dilemma-ridden, it has less to do with cellular biology and evermore to do with partisan rhetoric.  Of course, starting out on the route that may lead to a person is serious.  Of course leaving a person who needs treatment to suffer is serious.  Is a Golden Mean such as Aristotle recommended even possible?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031402353....  

What a shame there is such a thing as ethics getting in the way of good science. Image the medical progress if Nazi human experimentation was only allowed to continue. The ends always justify the means...or at least the theorized end. *sarcasm*

I'm guessing you don't want to hear my take on fertility treatments that create embryos that only become destroyed.

phoenixgirl wrote on 03/15/10 at 20:18:57:


You were too busy being anti-prolife to actually read what was wrote on the subject. Personally, I believe that killing a child of rape is punishing the child for a crime they did not commit. In this country, under our legal system, the crimes of the father cannot be placed on the shoulders of his children. However, I can sympathize with why people would want abortion to be legal in this situation. What I said in this thread is I could see allowing legal abortions in the cases of abuse, rape, and medical necessity. However, that only accounts for about 5% of all abortions performed in the United States. Abortion activists focus on those situations hoping for an emotional reaction to cause support, but it is a red herring.