Abortion Discussion

iwantmydinner

aloyisious wrote: »

Telling a pregnant woman that she MUST obey the dictates and faith of another person's personal beliefs is not on in a democracy.

Excellent summation.

kylith

lazygal wrote: »

Even extracting an egg from a woman is a difficult and invasive procedure requiring a lot of treatment. I don't see how a zygote or embryo would be extracted easily.

Getting it out would be the easy part compared to finding somewhere in a man's body for it to gestate.

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

Even extracting an egg from a woman is a difficult and invasive procedure requiring a lot of treatment. I don't see how a zygote or embryo would be extracted easily.

kylith wrote: »

Getting it out would be the easy part compared to finding somewhere in a man's body for it to gestate.

We've walked on the moon, travelled faster than the speed of sound. Flown through the sky, built robots that found water on Mars, cured illnesses and diseases in ourselves and animals, extended our lifespans by decades, sent words around the world at the speed of light, mapped our genome, I don't think there's anything we should label as impossible.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

We've walked on the moon, travelled faster than the speed of sound. Flown through the sky, built robots that found water on Mars, cured illnesses and diseases in ourselves and animals, extended our lifespans by decades, sent words around the world at the speed of light, mapped our genome, I don't think there's anything we should label as impossible.

Not impossible.... But where would it gestate? There simply isn't the ability for that unless you were able to transplant a womb into a man, but that'd involve the whole hormonal caboodle too, and then you get into the questions of 'If you transplant a womb in, is it really still a man'.

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

Not impossible.... But where would it gestate? There simply isn't the ability for that unless you were able to transplant a womb into a man, but that'd involve the whole hormonal caboodle too, and then you get into the questions of 'If you transplant a womb in, is it really still a man'.

A disposable womb? An artificial womb? I don't know to be honest, but I think it'd be something a lot of men would be interested in, in order to gain better empathy for what women go through.

lazygal

gaynorvader wrote: »

We've walked on the moon, travelled faster than the speed of sound. Flown through the sky, built robots that found water on Mars, cured illnesses and diseases in ourselves and animals, extended our lifespans by decades, sent words around the world at the speed of light, mapped our genome, I don't think there's anything we should label as impossible.

Not impossible, no. But I'd suggest a read of some trying to conceive forums to understand just how tricky reproductive medicine is, and that's for people willingly going through it. I'd imagine aborting a pregnancy would be far less difficult on a woman's body than extraction of a live foetus and transplantation into someone else.

old hippy

Jack Kyle wrote: »

We're talking about ending a human life versus some suffering for its parent.

Most parents would do anything for their children.

Yet we've posters in this thread freely admitting to fornicating with the expressed intention of aborting their baby if they become pregnant.

That is appalling in my view.

May I ask what is appalling about "fornicating"?

PopePalpatine

<Personal>

gaynorvader

lazygal wrote: »

Not impossible, no. But I'd suggest a read of some trying to conceive forums to understand just how tricky reproductive medicine is, and that's for people willingly going through it. I'd imagine aborting a pregnancy would be far less difficult on a woman's body than extraction of a live foetus and transplantation into someone else.

I do realise this, but I still think that there could one day, perhaps not so far off, be a way of doing it. I'd love to see how anti-abortionists would act if the foetus could be transferred to their bodies!

kylith

old hippy wrote: »

May I ask what is appalling about "fornicating"?

IDK, but I think its use says a lot about his attitude towards sex.

gaynorvader wrote: »

I do realise this, but I still think that there could one day, perhaps not so far off, be a way of doing it. I'd love to see how anti-abortionists would act if the foetus could be transferred to their bodies!

Their faces would be glorious to see, but I can't see it ever happening, certainly not in our lifetimes. The male body just isn't set up to deal with pregnancy.

iwantmydinner

gaynorvader wrote: »

We've walked on the moon, travelled faster than the speed of sound. Flown through the sky, built robots that found water on Mars, cured illnesses and diseases in ourselves and animals, extended our lifespans by decades, sent words around the world at the speed of light, mapped our genome, I don't think there's anything we should label as impossible.

Jaysus, I genuinely think it is one of those things that is actually impossible. I take your point about amazing achievements but I have a fair knowledge of medicine and human anatomy and I just couldn't ever see that being a possibility.

Morag

The IFPA have released a new video as part of the work to end the stigma which surrounds abortion.
No actors are used in the video, which is pretty ground breaking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4SSHkgD73E

mbiking123

lazygal wrote: »

Well no one has the right to violate anyone's bodily integrity even if its a life or death matter. For some reason some people think this doesn't apply to pregnancy and women are fair game to have their bodily integrity violated for up to 42 weeks and then have to give birth. Its a puzzler.

If only it was that easy

So if my life is at risk from an intruder I do not have the right to violate the bodily integrity of the intruder to protect myself

So why violate an innocent unborn child ? What has the child done wrong

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

If only it was that easy

So if my life is at risk from an intruder I do not have the right to violate the bodily integrity of the intruder to protect myself

So why violate an innocent unborn child ? What has the child done wrong

You're incorrect on this. Householders are allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property against intruders. See The Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011

Also, no one in favour of making abortions safe and legal has ever claimed that the foetus has done something wrong. Your argument is a complete non sequitur. Jesus.

robindch

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Your argument is a complete non sequitur. Jesus.

I've no idea what mbiking123's real name is, but I'm fairly sure it's not "Jesus".

Drop the posturing, plz.

gaynorvader

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Jaysus, I genuinely think it is one of those things that is actually impossible. I take your point about amazing achievements but I have a fair knowledge of medicine and human anatomy and I just couldn't ever see that being a possibility.

I'll admit to being largely ignorant on the details myself, but I really don't see it as an impossibility, the womb is a fairly self-contained bit of kit insofar as I understand it, input the right bits in (nutrients, etc) and you can gestate in it, the main problem is controlling the immune system as far as I can tell.

Could you explain why you think it's impossible?

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

I'll admit to being largely ignorant on the details myself, but I really don't see it as an impossibility, the womb is a fairly self-contained bit of kit insofar as I understand it, input the right bits in (nutrients, etc) and you can gestate in it, the main problem is controlling the immune system as far as I can tell.

Could you explain why you think it's impossible?

I'd imagine that it's for the same reason that grafting a penis onto a woman wouldn't result in a working penis. There's blood supply from the 'host' to the placenta, hormonal considerations (would the testes have to be removed?), where you're going to put it (since men don't have a space for the uterus to fit), what are the long-term effects to parent and child...

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

I'd imagine that it's for the same reason that grafting a penis onto a woman wouldn't result in a working penis. There's blood supply from the 'host' to the placenta, hormonal considerations (would the testes have to be removed?), where you're going to put it (since men don't have a space for the uterus to fit), what are the long-term effects to parent and child...

As far as I know, they're fairly close to developing an artificial womb independent of any human body. Surely it's not a huge leap to placing it into a person's body?
The issues you raise are good ones, but, call me idealistic, I don't think there's much humanity can't accomplish when we try.

kylith

gaynorvader wrote: »

As far as I know, they're fairly close to developing an artificial womb independent of any human body.

Got any links to that, it sounds fascinating.

AND we'd be able to transplant unwanted foetuses into them and give them to anti-choice people to look after.

Sarky

It'd be like making a soufflé to a recipe that doesnt mentions the ingredients you need, how you'll bake it or for how long, because you're already assumed to know those details.

Not impossible, but likely to involve a whole load of failed soufflés* before hitting on something like the correct recipe. Which would of course be subtly and significantly different for everyone.

I'm sure Jack wouldn't mind a few casualties on the road to saving teh babbies though. You could strap down a LOAD of pregnant women and force them through pregnancy for research purposes.

*Each of which you'd be forced to eat because hey, you knew that baking a soufflé to unknown recipes might result in one made entirely of anthrax, deal with the consequences you filthy liberal commie.

gaynorvader

kylith wrote: »

Got any links to that, it sounds fascinating.

AND we'd be able to transplant unwanted foetuses into them and give them to anti-choice people to look after.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120302101543.htm

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pelletier20121113

2030s is the estimate at the moment, but that could move either way.

Sarky

Interesting. Still, I'd give it a further 30 years to iron out the unpleasant problems nobody has thought of yet.

And another 30 to see if anyone born from one develops any abnormalities.

lazygal

mbiking123 wrote: »

If only it was that easy

So if my life is at risk from an intruder I do not have the right to violate the bodily integrity of the intruder to protect myself

So why violate an innocent unborn child ? What has the child done wrong

Its not a child until its born.

lazygal

Sarky wrote: »

Interesting. Still, I'd give it a further 30 years to iron out the unpleasant problems nobody has thought of yet.

And another 30 to see if anyone born from one develops any abnormalities.

We need to hear what Breda et al has to say too.

Obliq

Sarky wrote: »

*.....deal with the consequences you filthy liberal commie fornicator.

FYP

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

You're incorrect on this. Householders are allowed to use reasonable force to defend themselves and their property against intruders. See The Criminal Law Defence and the Dwelling Act 2011

Also, no one in favour of making abortions safe and legal has ever claimed that the foetus has done something wrong. Your argument is a complete non sequitur. Jesus.

No I am not incorrect, I am drawing on somebody else's statement

Dont know where Jesus is coming from ?

Proclamation of the Irish Republic - In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

So many people have sacrificed themselves for others, these heroes dont have the 'me, myself and I attitude'.

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

No I am not incorrect, I am drawing on somebody else's statement

Dont know where Jesus is coming from ?

Proclamation of the Irish Republic - In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.

So many people have sacrificed themselves for others, these heroes dont have the 'me, myself and I attitude'.

I'm afraid I'm not getting you. Would you mind expanding on your point?

Nodin

mbiking123 wrote: »

Proclamation of the Irish Republic - In this supreme hour the Irish nation must, by its valour and discipline and by the readiness of its children to sacrifice themselves for the common good, prove itself worthy of the august destiny to which it is called.
.

Whats that to do with anything?

mbiking123

Nodin wrote: »

Whats that to do with anything?

Sacrifice for others like the unborn child, instead of the 'I dont want a baby' syndrome

lazygal

mbiking123 wrote: »

Sacrifice for others like the unborn child, instead of the 'I dont want a baby' syndrome

Why is sacrifice necessary for a foetus you don't want in your uterus?