Abortions - Why so bad?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'd don't think I've ever said anyone in this thread advocated for that.

Source

In seven states, there is no statutory prohibition on abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Nor is there one in Washington, D.C., where the Post is located.

Pre-SCOTUS ruling but still applies. It's legal in 7 states and DC. So at least the legislators in those areas are not opposed to killing viable babies up to the moment of birth. Doctors won't do it, but it's legal. People voted for those politicians.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Annee

Why would you ask me that?

Only because you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

a reply to: Annee

I'm not getting the connection to abortion.

The connection to abortion would that the medical procedure would change only in that the embryo would be collected for freezing rather than destroyed. Of course, new legal and ethical issues will arise, such as the woman may not want her DNA out there in the world but those would need to be dealt at the time, if it ever comes to pass. If pro-lifers and pro-life/government really care about women (?) then they would look at all alternative options.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

I'm not getting the connection to abortion.

The connection to abortion would that the medical procedure would change only in that the embryo would be collected for freezing rather than destroyed. Of course, new legal and ethical issues will arise, such as the woman may not want her DNA out there in the world but those would need to be dealt at the time, if it ever comes to pass. If pro-lifers and pro-life/government really care about women (?) then they would look at all alternative options.

So, you're talking FORCE all women not to abort -- but remove the zygote and grow it in a lab?

a reply to: Annee

Women would already agree to the procedure to abort, so there is no forcing them in that respect. But I get where you are going, in that, if a procedure to potentially save the lives of the unborn via freezing for future birth, then, yes, the laws may change where the women would then have no choice but to still go through a similar procedure, which they would have agreed to go through, or needed to go through, from the beginning, so the only change would be the embryo would not be destroyed.

Once an alternative method or procedure is found to remove the unborn from the womb then the unborn may legally gain personhood because of viability, then the laws may change that any abortion would equal murder, in the eyes of the law.

originally posted by: quintessentone
a reply to: Annee

Women would already agree to the procedure to abort, so there is no forcing them in that respect. But I get where you are going, in that, if a procedure to potentially save the lives of the unborn via freezing for future birth, then, yes, the laws may change where the women would then have no choice but to still go through a similar procedure, which they would have agreed to go through, or needed to go through, from the beginning, so the only change would be the embryo would not be destroyed.

Once an alternative method or procedure is found to remove the unborn from the womb then the unborn may legally gain personhood because of viability, then the laws may change that any abortion would equal murder, in the eyes of the law.

Well, all I can say is NO.

I had an abortion. I wanted that zygote gone. No way would I want it removed and saved for later.

It's like you're looking at the in-between. There is no in-between. Women will carry to term or abort.

a reply to: Annee

I suggest you read the definition of zygote please instead of repeatedly using a misnomer. It just makes you look stupid to go along with heartless.

You’d rather see the life terminated than be saved even if you had no responsibilities beyond the procedure to remove your child. Says it all really.

a reply to: quintessentone

I can see a need for an artificial womb in saving a WANTED baby -- by giving them the chance to develop further -- if there were medical (other) reasons the mother could not carry to term.

I can see the possibility of conjoined twins developing further and/or medically treated to fully develop separately.

I can see an artificial womb for women born without one -- so they can have children.

But as a replacement for abortion? NO -- not any "if's" -- just NO.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Annee

I suggest you read the definition of zygote please instead of repeatedly using a misnomer. It just makes you look stupid to go along with heartless.

Not interested.

It suits the purpose.

a reply to: Annee

No, it doesn’t because it’s the incorrect use of terminology. Zygotes are only aborted as such when using the morning after pill. If you know you’re incorrectly using the term just to fit a narrative then it’s another example of you being disingenuous.

a reply to: Annee

But you wishing that zygote gone, it will be gone - just not destroyed.

a reply to: quintessentone

It’s not a zygote, don’t pander to her BS.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Something happens when someone is born. The born person suddenly breaths air into their lungs for the first time. The umbilical cord is cut and the placenta is no longer needed to protect and transfer the woman's life source over to the fetus. The fetus is liberated of its mother's body and is able to exist on its own.

Sounds spiritual, religious even....
The "woman's life force"....
What about the pre-born humans life force?
Do they not have one?
Is it endued by the Magical Person-Hood fairy during or after birth?
Is this magical life force what makes a human being into a person?
Is it like a sparkling dust or does the the fairy use a wand?

It gets a certificate of live birth, a name and an age, beginning from the time of its birth. It is now a person, completely independent of and separate from its mother, for the first time. A born person is a citizen. A born person is counted. A born person has rights.

LOL
and people wonder how this became political...
TOO funny.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grenade

You can be 5 feet away from the border, but your still not in that land until you actually cross that border.

You are still a human being though.

a reply to: Grenade

I mean really, I am not playing semantics here. And her BS is legitimate when it comes to a woman's right to choose, because as I theorized previously. If an embryo is deemed viable at a certain stage then it may gain personhood, therefore a woman's right to choose abortion may legally then equal murder.

If this comes to pass then a woman's right to choose what is done with that embryo is taken away. But why should it matter to the woman? She was willing to have the embryo destroyed in the first place? I'm missing the rationale behind why a woman would care if the embryo was saved for freezing as opposed to having it destroyed, except for choice(?).

a reply to: quintessentone

That’s exactly what you’re all doing, playing with semantics to obfuscate the truth. Personhood is a good example of this, an embryo is a human organism with a unique genome, it requires the use of disingenuous semantics in order to refute this objective truth.

I have no idea why she would rather see her child dead, you’ll need to work through whatever riddle of an explanation she fabricates next in order to justify her position.

originally posted by: quintessentone
If an embryo is deemed viable at a certain stage, then it may gain personhood, therefore a woman's right to choose abortion may legally then equal murder.

Sooki keeps repeating that over and over.

Yet - some posters keep trying to claim murder of a viable fetus (viable as able to live independently from the mother outside the womb).

a reply to: Annee

That’s because only you and sookie persist in using misnomers and fanciful language to obscure and confound reality.

a reply to: Grenade

I understand your point of view but there is also another point of view, a woman's right to choose - a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her body. I want to see pro-lifers/government/religious put their money where their mouths are - invest in cryopreservation and then we can save lives and a woman gets her autonomy restored.

Where's the desire to move forward from pro-lifers?

a reply to: quintessentone

She can do what she likes with her body, it’s the body of the unborn child I’m concerned with.

People need to take responsibility for the life they created.