Abortion in Animals

Moderate Right said:

I've finally figured out these abortion forums. They are membered by a few pro choice people who get very lonely when they don't have anyone to spar with until some unsuspecting naive person, such as myself, stumbles into their web and then they have as much fun as they can while it lasts and then they go back to being all alone again until the next victim falls into their trap. Well, I concede. You win. I have found a way out of the trap and I'm leaving you few all alone again until with nothing to do until that next victim comes around again. It must usually be quite a while between victims. In any event, I would like to thank all of you for really opening my eyes on this subject. Before being on this forum I didn't think much about abortion and could have cared less about it and didn't vote based on this issue but you have opened my eyes immensely to the fact that on this issue, any many others, the left is just stone cold partisan and uses every trick in the book to get their way. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with them because they refuse to listen to anything while accusing others of not listening to them. Even Bernie Sanders has figured this out. So, I really do appreciate you making me realize that pro-choice people are just stuck in a permanent feedback loop and have even said some very appalling and morally indefensible things that make me sick to my stomach. You have turned someone who could have cared less about abortion a few months ago into realizing that I need to add that to my list of things to look for when going to the voting booth. I leave you with the last word and I'm sure you'll take it but the only ones listening will be yourselves because I'm outa here.

Click to expand...

So, people didn't say what you wanted them to say and you are turning tail and running. :roll:

Moderate Right said:

I'm really growing tired of all the evasiveness and diversionary tactics used by those who just can't answer a simple question without constantly answering with more questions, never really answering the question. Some people just can't admit that they are for abortions and it really doesn't have anything to do with women's rights. Their world just keeps crashing down on them if they can't hide behind the women's rights issue. I don't know why it is so hard to admit that you believe in abortion and that's it.

I've finally figured out these abortion forums. They are membered by a few pro choice people who get very lonely when they don't have anyone to spar with until some unsuspecting naive person, such as myself, stumbles into their web and then they have as much fun as they can while it lasts and then they go back to being all alone again until the next victim falls into their trap. Well, I concede. You win. I have found a way out of the trap and I'm leaving you few all alone again until with nothing to do until that next victim comes around again. It must usually be quite a while between victims. In any event, I would like to thank all of you for really opening my eyes on this subject. Before being on this forum I didn't think much about abortion and could have cared less about it and didn't vote based on this issue but you have opened my eyes immensely to the fact that on this issue, any many others, the left is just stone cold partisan and uses every trick in the book to get their way. It's impossible to have a rational conversation with them because they refuse to listen to anything while accusing others of not listening to them. Even Bernie Sanders has figured this out. So, I really do appreciate you making me realize that pro-choice people are just stuck in a permanent feedback loop and have even said some very appalling and morally indefensible things that make me sick to my stomach. You have turned someone who could have cared less about abortion a few months ago into realizing that I need to add that to my list of things to look for when going to the voting booth. I leave you with the last word and I'm sure you'll take it but the only ones listening will be yourselves because I'm outa here.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I just dont think I understand what answer you are looking for. I'm not trying to be insulting. I just dont know what you want.

But just because you have not been able to make yourself clear doesnt mean that we're to blame. Ah...you might consider then....that it's you. Your method of questioning, your preconceived notions (you certainly have made it clear that you have them about 'the left'), etc.

The last thing you can call my posts...and the others, is evasive. Good lord! It's ridiculous that you *tell* us that our beliefs on the issue are not about women's rights...and have put forth no other 'theory.' Except you do keep writing that 'the left wants to terminate fetuses.' Do you have any idea how offensive and unrealistic that is? And again...you have shown no basis for that at all. (btw, in the post you quoted for this response, I was still actually trying to get you to clarify your argument...and again, you quit).

Lursa said:

Most liberals are in favor of CHOICE...meaning they support a woman's right to choose.

Many pro-choice women have stated here that they support that choice but would not terminate their own pregnancies. It IS about respecting women's rights, whatever they CHOOSE....so if apparently I still dont understand your point, I apologize.

Click to expand...

Exactly.
We have no say.
In a pregnancy it is up the pregnant woman.

Moderate Right seems to have no inkling of how much an infertile couple would have to want a child to go through egg harvesting, hoping and praying that an egg was fertilized and would continue to grow and become the baby they so desire.

He thinks his scenario plausible?
Or that we even understand what he is trying say?
Give me a break.

And then when I remind him how the real works with contracts....he says they could buy their way out of a contract.

LOL try buying your way of contract when you sign for a timeshare. Not that easy as several of my friends and family members told me.

Moderate Right said:

I just don't know why you and others insist on making my hypothetical argument more complicated than it is. I don't know what you mean by an "interested father". I'm talking about a married man and woman where the woman cannot conceive (therefore she was never pregnant) having an egg from her and sperm from him fertilized outside of the woman's body and placed in an artificial womb to grow all the way into a baby. At 8 weeks they get divorced and no longer want the child so they want to abort or terminate the growing fetus inside the artificial womb. This has absolutely nothing to do with harvesting an embryo or early stage fetus from a woman and has nothing to do with her body in any way, shape or form, other than her voluntarily donating an egg and her husband voluntarily donating sperm, so there is no procedure the woman needs to allow being done. Just because she donates an unfertilized egg doesn't give her any more rights than the husband donating sperm. They would both be equals as her body is not involved in any way.

Click to expand...

The hypothetical scenario is created by you to sandbag pro-choice advocates. You design hypothetical situations, which you love to throw in various abortion threads from time to time, for the sole purpose of achieving a "gotcha moment".

You're pro-life. You abhor abortion on demand. Your hypothetical premise is simply a morality test (based on your personal moral beliefs). The hypothetical situations are used to evoke a response by a pro-choice advocate, which implies that they are less moral than you with regard to the issue of abortion.

By employing the use of an artificial means for developing human life outside of a biological environment - you perceive that in doing so that a woman should no longer possess the ability to exercise her Constitutional right to abortion because the developing human life doesn't directly infringe on her body. Consequently the artificial womb abortion should be seen even more immoral than one that occurs in a biological womb.

By the way, in your post you stated that the woman donated an egg. And I would have to assume by the comment that the man donated sperm. No, they didn't. They intentionally had their reproductive gametes fused and put in an artificial womb to develop a human life to full fetal maturity so that a child would be "born" and be a part of their lives like any other child would be.

Haven't you ever heard that real life is stranger than fiction?

Do you realize that a very similar situation to artificial wombs has been happening for sometime now? It's currently done with surrogate mothers. If you'd spend a little research time I think you'll find cases where surrogate mothers have been asked to abort by the biological ovum/sperm producers because their relationships dissolved for whatever reason and they no longer wanted to share the parenting of a potential child.

And had you posed such an argument - that would be a real life dilemma and obviously one that would require a serious legal remedy under similar circumstances like you've created in your hypothetical situation - but would be a more challenging debate.

Additionally you've underestimated the legal power attached to the role of "parent".

Here's an actual case for to ponder:

The case involves Helen Beasley, a 26-year-old surrogate mother who is six months pregnant, and is suing Charles Wheeler and Martha Berman because, she claims in legal papers, they backed out of their agreement when she refused to abort one of the twins she is carrying.

The couple denies the charge, but the case, involving the Internet, possible abortion and echoes of last winter's battle over American twins adopted illegally in Britain, has been caught in the media spotlight.

~~SNIP~~

California Courts on the Intended Parents' Side

Both Zager and Sampson noted that California case history is not on Beasley's side. Under state law, parental rights in surrogate-birth agreements go to intended parents, not the surrogate mother.

The California Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Johnson vs. Calvert — where surrogate mother Anna Johnson unsuccessfully sought custody of the child she carried for California couple Crispina and Mark Calvert — supports arguments that Wheeler and Berman ultimately have the right to decide who will care for the unborn twins. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Fetuses and Surrogacy Lose in Legal Battle - ABC News

Click to expand...

The moral to this story is: LIFE IS COMPLICATED! But don't underestimate the legal process. Even the most pro-life judge which is bound by their oath to uphold the "law" would be forced to rule as it did in the case I cited. Parents do have a lot of power. Even to terminate a pregnancy that exist in somebody elses body (or potentially an artificial womb).