abortion, do you agree or disagree, why or why not? do you agree with some provisions or vice versa? i disagree with it to a point, but i belive there are extreme cases where it should be acceptable, such as rape. this is hard... im a liberal lol.
I don't think it is justifiable to kill the child for the crime of the rapist, but it would be a great improvement if the law restricted abortion to cases of rape/incest or threats to the mother's life. This would eliminate over 90% of the ~1.5 million abortions performed every year in the US. A majority of voters would support it, but the activist courts won't allow it.
I used to be relatively pro-choice until a friend of mine had some medical problems in pregnancy which forced her to have her baby almost 12 weeks premature. The baby was very, very, small, and was holding on for dear life in the hospital for almost 2 months, but did eventually make it. She's now almost 2 years old, and perfectly healthy and normal. After witnessing that, I have no doubt that an unborn child is still a child, and a life.
Well, in the bible it is clear that you are not alive till you breathe in your first breath (the word chai in hebrew means both breath and spirit, quite like the greek word pneumos), fer instance adam was made from clay and wasn't born until god breathed into his nostrils (it's somewhere in genesis chapter 2). I've always wondered where these religious people get their views on when life begins, because the bible obviously takes a contrary position. However, i think the bible is full of shit, and while it may have been a good field guide to nomadic shepards (the word hebrew means 'dusty one' meaning they traveled quite a bit) 5,000 years ago most of it doesn't hold up that well today. I think that life never truly begins or ends, it just changes shape, so if you want to pick out that little womb booger, go for it.
I wonder why there seems to be little outcry about all of the embryos that are destroyed each year as a result of in vitro techniques. I read that there are about 400,000 frozen embryos right now. Those are just the ones that couples have decided to spend money on and keep in liquid nitrogen. I don't know how many embryos have been destroyed since in vitro became viable in the late 70s, but I would suspect it's at least comparable to the 400,000 that are frozen or more. Not all couples decide to freeze embryos. Yet, when there is talk about using embryos that are going to be detroyed anyway and use them for medical research, there is a great moral outcry. It seems that the prevailing belief is that as long as the destroyed embryos were destroyed in the name of trying to have a baby, it's somehow not really that bad. And for those who believe that destroying embryos is equivalent to abortion, why not focus on all the embryos that are failed/destroyed as a result of in vitro methods, not even considering the debate about using them for medical research? .
Right, it would have impact whatsoever on the abortion rate . . . Breathing is a lay term for respiration, which the unborn certainly do. Personally, I think it should be illegal to produce more embryos at a time than can be safely implanted in a single IVF procedure. Regardless, your argument is flawed, in that it ignores the issue of public funding. Nobody is clamoring to outlaw privately funded embryonic stem cell research. The debate is whether it should be subsidized.
Part of the problem in the U.S. is that these issues have only been dealt with nationally in terms of whether or not to federally fund them. There really hasn't been a vigorous national debate about all the facets of this issue. The only thing that's happened is that federal funding has been cut off for new lines of embryonic stem cells. That's not a debate. The ethical questions are still there outside of the funding issues. It's rather shallow to say that the federal funding issue should be the ultimate concern or the overriding factor. There's been federal funding of in vitro techniques that has resulted in many destroyed embryos yet most don't seem bothered by it. There should be a national debate on how to regulate the in vitro industry to stop frivelous destructon of embyros. I find it puzzling that there's been no outcry over hundreds of thousands of destroyed embryos due to in vitro but there's an outcry over the therapeudic uses which would destroy an extremely small portion of what are lost due to in vitro. That's where the flawed argument seems to be. It's like having a big fight over the 2 calories in the diet coke and ignoring the 2000 calories in the Big Mac and fries. .
meanwhile back at the ranch. God wanted to define the worth of a human being. Obviously women came out lower, and the older you are the more you are worth. However, if you aren't a month old then you are not worth anything. Leviticus: 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.
No argument there! The concern is that federal funding would create an incentive to produce and destroy even more embryos. That's a very plausible scenario, in view of what's happening in South Korea.
The bill that's being sent to Bush wouldn't encourage more embryo destructions. Itl doesn't fund cloning of embryos as is happening in S. Korea. Those kind of issues are what should be debated fully. It would be better for the U.S. to decide nationally on standards rather than to simply cut off federal funding and let the industry ride privately with little or no guidelines. The federal funding of in vitro has done far more damage to embryos than any medical research funding for stem cells. That's what's ironic about all of this. .
Personally, I can't disagree with this. ALL INVITRO procedures cause embrionic loss. Either due to too many being produced, and not used, or the inevitable "miscarriages" that result from implanting more than 2 or 3 embryos during the implantation phase of INVITRO. But people who use this procedure want it this way. Harvesting eggs is expensive and painful, and most want as many eggs harvested and fertilized as possible. I am not going to say I am in favor of this. IMO, humans should not even try to have "litters" of babies.
Women also have a right to birth control so a baby doesn't have to die in the first place. . . If you dont want a baby then why are you having sex without some form of birth control in the first place?
