Obama and Infanticide

If it makes you feel better, I would support a federal law excluding frozen embryos from the census count, due to the unique circumstances of their cryopreservation.

This is truly an inane discussion for a thread intended to focus on infanticide.

 

Wrong. Many of us just have well-founded reservations about nationalizing health insurance:

http://www.nrlc.org/HCR/index.html

 

So you think an embryo is not a full person? Maybe 2/3rds? Can you maybe enumerate all the ways you think an embryo is a person, and the ways it is not?

I understand that you think this is inane conversation. You do seem intellectually lazy, at least on this issue. However, let me assure you that it gets to the heart of the matter.

Think about it, you now have a special distinction between embryos and non-embryonic people. Ok, so who decides? How do we enforce this? Do we have to keep a register of each and every embryo? If you truly believe these are persons, why are you so ready to take away their rights to representation?

Do you require each and every embryo to be brought to term? If not, are you not condemning some embryos to a frozen jail? And if so, does that mean the state, as guardian, has a duty to do everything it can to ensure the embryo is successfully implanted? Perhaps each embryo that can not find a womb should be matched with a willing mother? I guess we could import people from poor countries to do the job in exchange for taking a ward of the state out of its frozen jail...

 

Fair enough, but then raising a child is expensive. Who's gonna shoulder the costs, considering so many children are born in poverty as it is?

 

I've already explained that some rights (such as voting, representation, etc.) are age-dependent, unlike the most basic right to life.

The vast majority of frozen embryos are designated for future implantation. Those that aren't can be placed for adoption, as I've already pointed out.

In general, I believe that the reproductive technology industry should be far more strictly regulated. I would favor laws requiring that IVF procedures create no "spare" embryos. I also think that gamete "donors" should be given neither anonymity nor payment. Other countries already have similar policies in place.

 

It was a dodge the first time, and it still is. While children are not entitled to vote, as PERSONS they are still entitled to representation and are counted in the census.

From what i can tell, you are lukewarm at best, and you lack moral consistency. Either stand behind your convictions, or go home. You're not talking to children, you know.

 

to abort or not to abort is a womans choice.

end of.

dont vote for another bush.

blessings
xxx
xx
x

 

that is weak, like a crude drawing is going to change my mind.

i stand by my argument that it is up to the woman

 

heya spirit,

Care to stick around? These guys are going to explain why your womb should be the subject of government intrusion and scrutiny, and why that position whould be called "prolife" instead of "anti-fifth-amendment".

Unfortunately, HuckFinn can't decide if an embryo is truly a person deserving al the rights of a person, just some, or whatever is most convenient. We have yet to get to how the state is supposed to discover the existence of said embryo when it has never left the body of a woman. Also, coming up, why the state has a right to force a mother to donate resources to said embryo, but does not have a right to force fathers and mothers everywhere to help care for those embryos once they come out of the womb.

Stay tuned! The right-to-life-until-you-are-born-and-then-hands-off-my-resources circus side show is just beginning. The clown just showed up.

 

That picture is absolutely disgusting. Ty for posting it.



----


Abortion is a right, but I still look down on it especially when well to do women do it out of mere convenience. I just wished some women took responsibility for their actions.

(You can then mention how many men are dead-beats, but that's besides the point atm)

 

I was going to mention that the morality of another's choices when they exercise their rights is not relevant to the legal quandary before us.

This is the part where I point out that I would never condone abortion as a personal choice, and I was devastated when I lost a chance to become a father because the blastocyst got stuck in my wife's tube. But I would have been REALLY pissed off if I had been forced to prove to the state that we had made the right choice. It's just nobody's business but our own.

 

No, I'm just talking to an infantile adult. You completely ignored everything I said about regulating the production of human embryos ex utero, which would render your vacuous argument moot.

If you want to insist that frozen embryos must be counted in the census in order to prevent developing babies from being hacked to pieces in the womb, having their brains sucked out halfway through a breach delivery, or being left to die from neglect after surviving an induced labor abortion, then I say let's go ahead and count them in the census.

 

I'm trying to build a case for the fifth amendment. I will address what you said earlier, but in my time, if you choose to have an adult conversation with me.

Calling me an infantile adult is not likely to convince anyone of anything but your own impatience.

You are the one making huge logical leaps, not me. The fact that I would like to explore what lies between is hardly infantile. It's called critical thinking. Care to try it?

 

But those cute little embroys mean everything.

 

First, in most major cities, there are very long waiting lists of prospective parents wanting to adopt newborns. Second, even if there weren't a backlog of adoptive parents, would you say that economic hardship justifies killing infants? Death is no solution to poverty.

 

No, first off, we are going to establish on what authority the government can look into your womb. Since you can't even go as far as granting full personhood to embryos, you infer that full personhood is something that happens somewhere between conception and birth.

My supposedly infantile test seems to have uncovered inconsistency in your stance, while simultaneously pushing you further into the realm of government regulation of human reproduction.

Really? You think fertility treatments need to be more regulated? By what right? Should we need to ask permission of the government before having a baby? I suppose the implements should be strictly regulated as well? Are human eggs a public resource? Are you a socialist?

How many babies are you willing to adopt, and if demand is so high, why is it so many black children cannot be placed with adoptive parents? Perhaps you should be advocating for universal healthcare and blind adoption if you are truly pro-life.

One more question: how do you feel about the death penalty?

 

You're inferring; I've implied no such thing. The humanity of embryos is a scientific fact:

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/life/bioethics/articles/whendoes.html

Their personhood is a metaphysical question. (You've ignored the link I previously provided discussing the metaphysical aspects of this issue.) None of this is has any bearing on the practicality of including frozen embryos in the census count.

I specifically said that the production of "spare" embryos ex-utero should be more strictly regulated. This is hardly a radical concept. For example, there has been widespread agreement in Congress on banning reproductive cloning. The contentious issue has been research cloning.

We've adopted two so far.

Do you have a source for this claim? It seems implausible, given that so many parents are now adopting internationally.

I support some form of universal health care, but I'm not convinced that a nationalized system is the best approach, for reasons discussed in a reference I cited earlier.

I don't know what you mean by "blind" adoption. Are you suggesting that the racial background of children placed for adoption should be hidden from adoptive parents? That seems utterly absurd.

I see a need for reform, but it is not morally comparable to murdering innocent unborn babies.

 

The humanity of my hand is a scientific fact. It's a human hand. It's also my date tonight, but it isn't a person. And the metaphysical question you refer to is at the heart of the matter, and has legal implications. I am attempting to pit your own common sense against your dogma. I know it's frustrating, but if you want to be a half decent advocate against abortion rights, you need to think it through.

Now let's assume that embryos are persons with a right to life. This entitles them to legal protection from aggression, no? Does it also entitle them to feed off another human? Why, or why not. If we are entitled to feed off our mothers, why are we not entitled to take the resources of others once we exit the womb?

Is a woman covered by the fifth amendment only until she becomes pregnant? Can a woman be forced to testify against herself as long as she is pregnant?

If as you say, this is a non-issue because we only prosecute doctors for abortion, by what right can the government gather evidence against the doctor, and if this clashes with the rights of the patient, how do we decide which rights to respect?

Given that the demand for abortions can not be eliminated, are you not condemning desperate women to criminality and excessive danger? Who will perform the medically necessary abortions, and how will we decide who is entitled to one? A committee? A court?

Would a physician be risking murder charges for saving a woman's life if he can not prove necessity in a court of law because the woman refuses to testify?

This issue is more complicated than you or I would like it to be. I can't completely discount your point, and I do believe a fetus is human life that should be protected as best we can, but i can't find a way to do it that does not trade a greater evil for a lesser one. You seem intent on doing good in the world, but have you stopped to wonder how to maximize that good and truly help minimize the demand for abortion?

May I suggest your next adopted child be a black one? Here is a link that will help inform you.

 

If your question is whether I'm suggesting that economic hardship justifies terminating pregnancy, yes, I believe it does. An aborted fetus never experiences life, but a child born into poverty experiences misery, and puts undue hardship onto society.

Then there's the issue of the mother carrying the fetus against her will, and the psychological consequences of being forced to give up the child for adoption once it's born due to economic hardship.

Not to mention the consequences of pregnant women with nowhere to turn taking matters into their own hands.

Not that I'm advocating abortion, just freedom of choice.