Full rights for a embryo

[nota bene]

US in 2020: 250,000 Covid deaths and counting; Appointment of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett tasked to kill universal health insurance; 400,000 and increasing unwanted children in foster care; significantly higher death rate of the poor due to lack of insurance, 500,000+ deaths from unavoidable environmental toxins, lack of corporate job safety measures for low wage workers: unlicensed and un-inspected day care used by the low wage workers; 800,000 abortions/year mainly because families don't have health insurance, a living wage, decent housing, child care, access to well baby clinics, stable families, or access to really effective women's contraceptives. ............... and the US is probably not one of the worst.

This is non-responsive.

 

[weaver2]

They can do minimally invasive heart surgery already. Given enough time it will be socially unacceptable to kill fetuses. I'd be utterly disgusted by any person that would choose to kill their fetus when a safe and minimally invasive alternative is present. I am very selective and reserved with my use of the word evil, but that's exactly what that is.

Your technology solution is nothing more than banning abortion. Pure evil is bringing children into the world unwanted and unloved. Read up on the horrors that happened in Romania when they banned abortion.

 

[SheWolf]

From the moment of conception should a embryo receive all the exact same rights as any born child?

How would this work reasonably or logically? An embryo doesn’t have a religion, it can’t own a gun, it lacks the ability to express itself, etc.

 

[dex4974]

Your technology solution is nothing more than banning abortion. Pure evil is bringing children into the world unwanted and unloved. Read up on the horrors that happened in Romania when they banned abortion.
View attachment 67300537

I guess dead babies are better than babies without parents? It's also impossible for us to improve these systems, huh?

 

[SheWolf]

This is non-responsive.

And your posts have been equally non-responsive to the OP.

 

[weaver2]

I guess dead babies are better than babies without parents? It's also impossible for us to improve these systems, huh?

That's what I'm waiting for: your idea of how society improves it's handling of unwanted children. Other countries have fewer abortions ....... a lot fewer......... and fewer unwanted children or children families couldn't support.

Improving society is a better and more humane activity than artificial wombs that produce the same number of unwanted babies.

 

[vegas giants]

How would this work reasonably or logically? An embryo doesn’t have a religion, it can’t own a gun, it lacks the ability to express itself, etc.

Well neither does a infant

 

[ClaraD]

No, up until viability...which obviously changes as time continues on...if there is a time that the embryo can survive outside of the uterus then yes...If it can be removed and transplanted into a fake uterus or someone else's sure...but not until that happens...until then, viability is the measurement...whether it reduces to 16 weeks or stays at 20 weeks....or even reduces below that.

 

[SheWolf]

People die every day in this country from a lack of healthcare.

Didn’t Ronald Regan say the churches needed to take care of people in need, the disabled, sick, mentally impaired, physically handicapped, etc?

Before American pro lifers remove most birth control options and even legal abortion, I think they should turn their “culture of life” talk into a little bit of action.

 

[weaver2]

This is non-responsive.

No it's not. Before you start looking at full rights for fetuses the above situations need to be fixed so that already born children have rights and chances to grow up wanted, loved and cared for.

 

[weaver2]

I guess dead babies are better than babies without parents? It's also impossible for us to improve these systems, huh?

So let's hear some suggestions for improving systems instead of using technology to replicate something that already exists in a perfected form.

 

[SheWolf]

Well neither does a infant

An infant can express its needs. Even if it’s crying because it’s hungry or sick. An infant also has physical autonomy, and it has the right to live free of sexual and physical abuse. An embryo cannot be abused sexually or physically. It’s development can be impaired and it can die, but it’s a different biological situation because it lacks individual autonomy. The majority of embryos live inside a woman’s uterus, others live in labs.

 

[dex4974]

That's what I'm waiting for: your idea of how society improves it's handling of unwanted children. Other countries have fewer abortions ....... a lot fewer......... and fewer unwanted children or children families couldn't support.

Improving society is a better and more humane activity than artificial wombs that produce the same number of unwanted babies.

Even if we improve all of the systems this situation will occur sometimes.

 

[weaver2]

Why is it that all the anti-abortion advocates want to talk about rights for the fetus but when the rights of the already born children are mentioned the word is, "Oh that's the parents responsibility".

So if the rights of the already born children are a parents responsibility how come the rights of the fetus are the sole purview of a bunch of maudlin, weepy conservative Christians?

 

[weaver2]

Even if we improve all of the systems this situation will occur sometimes.

Right, back to the handy conservative escape route for not doing anything rational: if it's not fixing the problem 100% it's not worth doing.

 

[dex4974]

Right, back to the handy conservative escape route for not doing anything rational: if it's not fixing the problem 100% it's not worth doing.

I am not a conservative. I fully support creating nets to mitigate the problem entirely and to help the people I would save with technology. The point is this situation will still occur though. Women will have unwanted pregnancies.

 

[weaver2]

I am not a conservative. I fully support creating nets to mitigate the problem entirely and to help the people I would save with technology. The point is this situation will still occur though. Women will have unwanted pregnancies.

Oh, not a conservative? So far, including the "Oh let's not do anything because nobody can fix the problem 100%" most of what you support seems to be a conservative view point.


Name a social problem that has been fixed 100%.

 

[dex4974]

Oh, not a conservative? So far, including the "Oh let's not do anything because nobody can fix the problem 100%" most of what you support seems to be a conservative view point.


Name a social problem that has been fixed 100%.

You're not even having a conversation with me anymore. Forget it.

 

[Lursa]

Because one is killing an unborn child and the other is a person dying due to a lack of available resources. It's not the same. Both are bad but the first is more evil.

No it's not. In the latter case, society determined that there were a lack of resources because they wanted financial security. That's exactly the same reason most women have abortions.

 

[Lursa]

No. Rights and responsibilities change with the age of a person even after birth. The part of RvW ‘clarification’ which is often ignored is that it too made distinctions based on time (age?) from conception until (natural) birth.

But it didnt make any decision to formalize it. It left it up to the states after 24 weeks.

 

[dex4974]

No it's not. In the latter case, society determined that there were a lack of resources because they wanted financial security. That's exactly the same reason most women have abortions.

So it's okay for society to kill to save resources?

 

[Lursa]

This issue will probably be solved or at least heavily impacted by technology. Once we can transport the baby to an artificial womb it changes things.

How so? It would be an even more invasive procedure and it would still require the woman's consent.

 

[weaver2]

You're not even having a conversation with me anymore. Forget it.

That's OK, your posts have been nothing more than self-congratulation at the cleverness of your techno-womb. The only remotely realistic thing you've said was, "It's also impossible for us to improve these systems, huh?" And I'm still waiting to hear improvements in the present systems.

 

[Lursa]

So it's okay for society to kill to save resources?

You seemed to imply that. That was your excuse for letting the elderly die.

 

[dex4974]

You seemed to imply that. That was your excuse for letting the elderly die.

I did not imply that.