It won't happen. It's a vote grab, I expect. The interstate commerce clause has been used to regulate much more mundane things. It would be swiftly called into play. And law can only fight human nature to so much of an extent. This is past that extent. Of course they haven't thought through the implications of this bullshit, religion has no place in politics or medicine, they probably don't even have the mental capacity TO think it through. It's a small step from that to declaring an egg or sperm legally "sacred" for being a potential half of a potential lump that could potentially grow into a fetus that could potentially grow into a child that could potentially grow into an adult, and thus illegal to waste. (masturbation? menstruation?). And this is pretty much what the bible says, and so pretty much the eventual goal of religious politics.
WHAT the fuck did you just say? Own volition, as in.... the mothers volition? it's a PART of the mother! I did not say this, and pro-choice does not. Consciousness happens considerably before birth, but considerably AFTER it's okay to abort. Further, eggs and sperm grow and are alive too, and outside the womb, can considerably outlive an embryo. It's a fact, they are alive and swim of their own volition, have their own genetic material, etc. They ARE alive, and closer to sentient life than an embryo is.
There are two extremes here. Somewhere in the middle is common sense. There is a big difference between a woman not knowing she is pregnant drinking to much and causing a misscarriage of a baby so small she is never aware of it, and cutting the skull open on a 6 month old fetus and scooping the brains out. (I heard about this being done on a radio talk show.) Two, there is absolutely no need for invitro fertilization. It leads to some questions too, such as the ability to clone people. If the couple who became pregnant and didn't want their baby would birth it and give it to someone who does, the system would be balanced. My brother has adopted 5 children, one of them black, and is perfectly happy with his family.
Why do you have to say one of them is black? I have to disagree with you on invitro fertilization though, if a couple want a baby and needs a little help in doing so then they should be able to get that help and not have to choose to raise someone else child.
I don't have to say one of them is black. I wanted to. In other posts on this thread, it has been said we do not have the right to tell people what to do. So you do not have the right to make me say one of them is black or make me not say one of them is black, I did that because of my own free will. Another reason why I said that is because most white couples would not dream of adopting a black baby. They think it is cute to adopt foreign babies like Chinese or Vietnamese and spend thousands of dollars to do so, but they wouldn't adopt a black baby from their own hometown.
A fertilized egg is a combination of the mother and father, not just the mother. As discussed earlier, it could be removed from the mother and put into a nurturing environment and it would grow without any help. Technically, the mother is not needed to grow a baby. The mother happens to have an ideal environment. I see now that even pro-choice people cannot agree on abortion. You have said several times the baby becomes a person with rights when it gains consciousness (kind of hard to determine, wouldn't you say?) and someone else has said the baby becomes a person with rights when it starts to breathe. (Typically this would be after birth).
Going back to what Karen said-- This law is frickin ludacris. Im wondering how many women will refuse prenatal care because of fear of being investigated if they miscarried. To humperdick-- In no way is a fetus a seperate being from the mother. Until the child is born it is a parasite, feeding off the host...the mother. Im sorry, but every woman should have the choice to have an abortion. If you don't like it, dont have one but dont force your way of thinking on me. As far as IVF, who are you to say who has the right to have their DNA passed on? Have you ever struggled to get pregnant? Do you know the self-conscious doubt that one inflicts upon themselves?? Yes, there are children that deserved to be adopted, but that doesn't negate the fact that being pregnant is the single most amazing experience EVER in my opinion. Until someone has been in that situation one has no right to dictate how others should live their lives. BTW, Im pro-choice, pro IVF, pro adoption and pro RESPONSIBLE choices. And no, I have never had an abortion or IVF.
You said it I didn't, and I didn't say " you can't say that" I just asked why you felt you had to tell us that one of them is black. You are wrong white people do adopt black babies, I think you had better look at some stats before you say that. I being white do have a black grandson so there went that stat. I think that your passion to be so right on the forum has over taken your ability to think before you post.
I hope you are right. Unfortunately, our polarized political situation works against common sense and reaching any kind of reasonable middle ground. Hateful reaction against the opposite side could easily lead some states (especially deep South) to do some really stupid things that have too many unintended consequences. This is craziness. It needs to stop. It's time for people to calm down. But it is very important to some couples to have a child that is biologically their own. I can't personally relate to that mindset, but I respect their right to feel that way, and to act upon it. People who are interested in adoption should adopt. Neither approach is right or wrong. Freedom is choice.
Quote: Originally Posted by Humperdink If the couple who became pregnant and didn't want their baby would birth it and give it to someone who does, the system would be balanced. And what about the health risks to mother from carrying a full-term pregnancy? What about the constant nagging in your heart knowing someone is out there that will always wonder where they came from? Granted, abortion doesn't solve everything and it certainly leaves emotional scars, but if having an abortion will save someone from birthing a child that would (potentially) grow up poor or unloved then I think that would be a better option for everyone. Not to mention, many adoption stories aren't that sweet. Not everyone gets adopted as babies intoma loving, caring home. I'm sorry, but I can't get on board with what you're saying. Am I missinterpreting you?
Here is an article on how people, including adoption agencies, feel about white couples adopting a black baby. http://library.adoption.com/articles/the-colors-of-adoption-black-vs.-white.html I also found it intersting that is 1973, the year of the Roe-V-Wade decision, 19.3 percent of children born to white unwed mothers were put up for adoption and in 1996-2002 only 1.3 percent of babies born to white unwed mothers were given up for adoption. That is a very intersting statistic with a lot of meaning. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db12.htm
It obviously doesn't have rights when it gains consciousness, if I said that I shouldn't have. But it still shouldn't be terminated at that point. And no, of course it's not a point, it's a gradient. But abortion should be over and done with, or out of the question, long before the beginning of that emergence of consciousness begins. You can put just about anything into a nurturing environment, and it will grow. In vitro also refers to petri dish style experiments on live flesh, say for new drugs or medications, or toxins, or for studying cancer, or that manner of thing. Lots of stuff grows just fine with NO brain anywhere near it, and thus not the faintest shadow of consciousness. And this is human flesh we're talking about. The fact that the cells do what their DNA says to do and multiply is not related to having free will or consciousness or anything else that "volition" implies. And yeah, the fathers DNA is present.... ONE cell of it. Copies of it are made, but made from the mothers body, just like the rest. The fetus is, for all intents and purposes, a growth of the mothers body. While it does not (to my knowledge-it would theoretically be possible) happen in humans, it's quite possible for a female to have offspring with no male, in fact.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenic Did you not quote my whole post because you only had enough half-assed cheap shots for the first two paragraphs? Adoption is cool, except that people don't take well to being adopted. Of course if there's unwanted kids they should be adopted, but humans don't like uncertainty and many many many adopted people basically become ungrateful shits, even the best loved and cared for, whos adoptive parents have totally accepted them as being as good as their own flesh. There's all manner of "support groups" and such for people who have been adopted, and decide that they'll find their parents (and who have some sort of silly idea that their parents want to be found).
If you take a finger off and make it grow, what will it grown into? Or say part of a liver, will it grow into a whole liver? If it will grow into a whole liver, why aren't we growing livers for transplant instead of needing to take a whole liver from one dead person to transplant into a live person? I think in the future we may learn how to grow livers, but so far as I know it hasn't been done yet. If you take a fertilized egg and put it into the proper environment, it grows into a person. I would say this is a pretty big difference. I don't quote whole posts for several reasons. One, if I just quote a few points that I want to comment on, it cuts down on the size of my post and therefore saves on the costs of running the site. Two, if people want to read your whole post, it is only a few scrolls up from mine and they can read it. If I was to quote your whole post nobody would read the whole thing anyway. Thank you for referring to my comments as half assed cheap shots. That type of ammunition lends itself well to civil conversation, something I do regularly when I am talking to my friends. It always brings out their best arguments.
I am pro-choice, male and not Christian. I have always wondered why most (not all) pro-life people want so badly to have every child born and not aborted, yet they scream bloody murder at the idea of welfare or higher taxes to pay for these (usually) unwanted children. Is it more humane to allow so many children to live in suffering or poverty with parents (two if they are lucky) who cannot provide for them? I think everyone should look at him/herself and decide how the world is better or worse with them in it before they crusade for the lives of the unborn.
Abortion is wrong? So is alcohol, maybe get rid of that and their won't be so many teen abortions you're all worried about. I wonder, have all you pro-life people been in the situation where one is confronted by a pregnancy that should not have happened? Do you understand the ordeals woman AND men go through when faced with the decision? Would you rather the child be born into a family where the parents may be junkies? Abusive? Drunks? Homeless? Or even teenagers who simply are not ready? Sure, you can put the baby up for adoption, but it really isn't that easy.. You can be on the adoption list for months and by the that time, crucial development of the brain has already began and could be too far damaged to go back. Is that what pro-life people want? Pro-life people, if you were born into a truly horrible family, would you still thank whoever for being born, even though your life is truly shit? This is an old argument.. It's really none of my business whether that woman over there gets an abortion, I don't know her, I don't know how the pregnancy occured, so I'm not going to go over there, scream in her face telling her her fetus has fingernails, because that's fucking wrong. Who the fuck are you to say that to someone you've never met? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ver-giving-hope-millions-diseased-organs.html Humperdink, you're okay with IVF, of course?
Again, you're making half-assed cheap shots. But I shall shoot them down, just the same. The liver does repair itself, in a rather remarkable manner compared to other organs, when it's in a nurturing environment. We don't grow organs for transplant because it's obviously rather hard to create an artificial nurturing environment for them. With our current knowledge of genetics and growth, especially with stem cells, it's theoretically quite possible. Even if we could do one though, we couldn't do them on any sort of scale needed for transplant, do you know how expensive and hard it is to even get a transplant from a cadaver? And a finger obviously shouldn't grow INTO anything, it's already a finger. If you put it into a nurturing environment, it would grow at the rate needed to sustain it's existence as a finger, until it aged too much and died, just as it does when it's on a hand. Unless of course it was an infant finger, in which case the right nurturing environment with the right growth hormones and such would cause it to grow into an adult finger. The purpose of a finger is to act as a finger, while the purpose of an embryo is to multiply and grow into a fetus, which grows into a baby, if you let it. A more relevant question might have been to ask if we can grow a finger out of just finger DNA. and of course, we can, there have been experiments into growing things like ears and fingers for transplant onto humans on mice or other genetically similar laboratory animals. I know they've got them to grow, though I don't know about the transplant success, yet. So, to sum up, of course there's no reason a finger or liver should grow if thrown in a petri dish, even if it's properly nurtured, because that's not what a finger or liver does in any situation. However, you can sustain a finger or liver piece in it's current form in a lab, and it will keep being a liver or finger. Which is, again, done for in vitro experiments. If you put a fetus in a nurturing environment, it would do what it does, and grow, because that's what it's DNA and the mothers hormones (part of it's nurturing environment) are telling it to do. Just like the finger is maintained because that's what the part of the DNA it's acting on tells it to do. Any more lame cheap shots you need shot down? *edit* You're not saving any signifigint amount of bandwidth by not quoting my whole post, even compared to say, loading the background image, or somebody's avatar. It may simplify things on your end to pair down what you're quoting, but that's because whenever most of a post makes a fool of you, you can just start a silly argument(like about growing livers vs. fetuses), and drag things on, before re-opening a point you lost on at a later time. In this last case, you quoted two thirds of my post and cut out the last third. It seems somewhat dishonest to only quote that part, but cut out a shorter part, for the purported reason of saving bandwidth and helping the reader. It mostly helps the reader not see my entire point.
So to you this is some sort of game, with winners and losers? To me, it is people arguing opposing viewpoints. And it's an internet forum, which is very different from a doctor's discussion meeting. Until you prove to me that a 2 day old baby does not have a soul and is therefore not a person with the right to live, I have not lost a single point. This reminds me of high school. I always made sure I had extra pencils in case mine broke, plenty of paper for notes, etc. So when the preppy kids needed the supplies they were too stupid to bring, guess who they went to? And they called me a nerd. Here I am once again being called a loser just because I have an unpopular viewpoint. Being responsible was unpopular in school, and it still is today. I understand that people want to have sex with no responsibility, I get it. And I am diametrically opposed to the idea of it. Having a sexual relationship with someone implies some responsibility, especially if you get pregnant. The family is the backbone unit of any nation. You can trace the worsening of social problems, financial problems, and political problems to the breakdown of the family. One of the main reasons the radical Muslims want all Americans dead is because of our abortion laws. So technically you can trace the destruction of the World Trade Center to the Roe-V-Wade decision in 1973. I can't believe you are saying a finger does not grow into a person, and a liver does not grow into a person, but an embryo will yet that makes no difference and then say "Well he lost that point," or "I really made him look like a fool there." Part of the reason I write the way I do and argue the way I do is that I am bipolar. The bipolar mind's synapses in normal phase fire quite a bit faster than a normal person, causing the thoughts to go through much faster than they can be put on paper, which leads to a somewhat unorganized thought pattern on paper.
And I've never seen a thing about an actual speed of firing in the synapses having anything to do with manic depression, which is what "bi-polar disorder" is the new name for. It simply means you're happy, then you're sad. Just chemically imbalanced. Also, with your fascination with things that grow of their own volition, and adoption, I've know a cool place where you can adopt the fucking messiah, judging by the speed of growth relative to human babies. Comes with all its shots, a microchip, any colour you please (that seemed important too) and only costs 30 bucks.
