My take on the abortion issue.

[jallman]

The problem that I continually encounter, when I speak about philosophy and throe in some supporting science, is that there is always some random reader who will interject and demand a full scientific explanation with irrefutable scientific proof.

Such persons always fail to see that it is because I do not have all the answers, that I bring up the ideas that I do.

Even when I unscientifically declare "God exists" and spell out that faith in God is only provable to the individual, and not the masses, some one will always demand that I scientifically prove God exists.

And then there are those who do nothing but issue attacks and personal insults....

I wish that this site had privet rooms. Maybe then I could learn more.

I tend to agree with you there busta. It kills me when a party takes a clearly moral and philosophical debate and demands that you ground it in pure science. Plus its those same people that half the time cant even put up hard science for their own arguments. (And no, that is not directed at ANYONE in particular.)

Also, after going back and reading though some posts again, I have to give you an apology on some of the affronts we made toward eachother yesterday. Vergiss was being a bit out of line and I just jumped in to her rescue without much regard for anything except she was on my side.

However, you still never caught me in a slip up

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by Fantasea
can only respond that any person who can label the killing of any child, for any reason, as a noble act, has a truly twisted understanding of both terms.

The next time you come across a disabled person, ask him whether he would prefer to be dead.

I have a better thought, why don't you ask them if there was a chance that if the mother could have known that she'd pass a disease on, she could have had an abortion, instead of condemning the disabled person a life of hardship.
I think abortion is a good alternative Until science can come up with better treatments, or even cures to these illnesses.

I take it that you are attempting to rationalize the nearly fifty million human children who have died as a result of 'legal' abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Your attempt has failed.

Who are you to judge who should be put out of their misery as if you were extending mercy to a severely injured animal?

If those "50 million" people perished as a result of Roe Vs. Wade as you suggest, how would our world look now? Probably at least 1 in every 3 people would be either handicapped, have a severe muscle and brain malformations, and not to mention our world would be fiiled of all ills.

Suffering may be terrible, but it can and should be aleviated. We don't kill cancer patients, do we?

No, they pretty much die themselves, as bad as it sounds, our medicine is still rather primitive, If a woman Knew that she was to give birth to a cancerous child, isn't rather intelligent to abort the baby? Or would you rather it go through life with cancer. We don't have a cure for it, among other ills. When we can cure most illnesses, I would say it is wrong to have an abortion. But for now, we can't, so I won't.

 

[kal-el]

Um, what comparison?

I never made any comparison. I asked you how abortion, the killing of a human being, qualifies as "science." It's your views on religion that are irrelevant in this thread and until you can tell me how exactly an abortion is "science" any more than killing somebody with a high-tech weapon is science, then I'll stop considering your statements to be BS.

Science is not a practice. Science is the human being. To be for or against abortion, or science, whatever form it takes, is as silly as asking ourselves if we are for or against our children growing up. It's undeniable! Whether there is ever a ban on abortions, they will happen anyway. So I suggest you change your stance. Because science teaches itself. So, like I said,instead of uselessly debating whether we are for or against this or that scientific and technological novelty,let's look at what we can do with it.

To begin with, the most serious consequence of Down's syndrome is a learning disability, so don't try to tell me that we should kill children because of it. As for cancer and AIDS, there's no way to tell if they have either of those things in the womb. However, if you find killing them preferrable to allowing them to live with a disease, why not kill everyone who has Down's syndrome, AIDS, or cancer? By your logic, they should die in order to relieve themselves of their "suffering."

I suggest that if you are so against abortion, you are probably against stem cell research too, feel free to refuse these scientific techniques. I ask everyone that is against stem cells to sign a statement saying that they, or their family will never benefit from any cures that will come out of it. I want to help you guys stay consistent! If, 100 years ago, if the powers that be had been able to pass laws against the freedom of science, today we would have no antibiotics, surgery, blood transfusions, organ transplants, vaccinations, cars, electricity, computers, airplanes, and the list goes on. If these scientific and technological discoveries had been forbidden 100 years ago, 3 billion people never would have been able to enjoy life, instead dying in childhood, and that could include our parents, and us. We might be able to safley say that approx. 90% of us are still alive thanks to science.

3 billion people would have died early. This is a greater crime than Any criminal has ever commited against humanity, including Hilter or Napolean.

Today, we have in our hands the lives of billions of people, those alive now, as well as future generations.

Wrong. Abortion and infanticide were widely practiced by the Romans, around 1,500 years before Beethoven's time. You know, you really ought to have better knowledge of a subject before trying to argue a position on it.

Maybe, but now we have perfected as well as mastered it. So there is No reason to outlaw it.

No, that person's life will mean more than that. At least the person will have the chance to experience the world, all the tastes and sounds and sights. The person will have a chance to love and experience love. Also, you're failing to account for the possibility that the child will not get the disease, much like Beethoven.

Furthermore, who are you to determine that the child should be killed based on your prediction of how the child's life will turn out? No one knows what life will bring. No one knows if that child, in spite of his or her disease, will make a contribution to society that will save lives or otherwise enrich our culture. No one knows if, somewhere down the road, that child will be cured and live disease-free. No one knows the profound positive impact that this person, diseased or not, will have on the people around him. The problem is that you don't think about the possibility's of one's life. All you see is a disease and, much like the Nazis, seek to eliminate the people who should be getting the most care.

As you are surely unaware, we Can now determine, at an early stage of developement, if the child will have a chronic illness. How can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you refused the practice of modern science, abortion, and made this child's life horrible?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Science is not a practice. Science is the human being.

While this is a beautiful line for a bumper sticker, it doesn't make sense. Science is nothing more than a tool to be utilized by man. It makes no more sense to say that man is language or mathematics.

To be for or against abortion, or science, whatever form it takes, is as silly as asking ourselves if we are for or against our children growing up.

In fact, to most of us, that's the exact question you are asking. Should I allow this child in my belly to grow up? If you believe abortion is a suitable option, then you are saying "no, my child should not be allowed to grow up"

Whether there is ever a ban on abortions, they will happen anyway.

And therefore, because murder will happen, we should make it legal, because, it will happen anyway.

So, like I said,instead of uselessly debating whether we are for or against this or that scientific and technological novelty,let's look at what we can do with it.

In otherwords, "Ask not whether we should clone, but rather, what can we clone next!?"

... We might be able to safley say that approx. 90% of us are still alive thanks to science.

You're making an argument for unlimited power for sience based on some of the good that has come from it. Conversly, I would say where it not for science we would never have the ability to corrode our ozone layer, someday leading to the cancerous end of millions of us. Nor the invention of the atom bomb. Good and bad come from science, just as it does from any other tool. Wonderful things have come from governmental control, should we give them unlimited ability to rule however they see fit? Of course not. Moderation is absolute key to existance. Until you understand this, you will live in extreme succsess and extreme failure.

As you are surely unaware, we Can now determine, at an early stage of developement, if the child will have a chronic illness. How can you look yourself in the mirror knowing that you refused the practice of modern science, abortion, and made this child's life horrible?

On top of this, how could you ever live with yourself allowing your child to be ugly? Or, say, homosexual. Or not be a genious. Just dream of the possibilities! We can form the perfect race, and kill anything that is lesser. Instead of humanity, we are creating a scientifically generated species that does not have the same attributes, the same quirks as humanity. You are on a path to take away humanity and replace it with something it is certainly is not.

 

[Busta]

"While this is a beautiful line for a bumper sticker, it doesn't make sense"

That's the best 1 liner I've heard in a long time!!!:lol:

 

[kal-el]

Originally posted by sebastiansdreams
While this is a beautiful line for a bumper sticker, it doesn't make sense. Science is nothing more than a tool to be utilized by man. It makes no more sense to say that man is language or mathematics.

That is a correct statement.

And therefore, because murder will happen, we should make it legal, because, it will happen anyway.

Why not make rape legal too? 100s of rapes, not to mention murders and other crimes are shown on national television daily. So what's the difference?

In otherwords, "Ask not whether we should clone, but rather, what can we clone next!?"

Hey, you said it, not me.

You're making an argument for unlimited power for sience based on some of the good that has come from it. Conversly, I would say where it not for science we would never have the ability to corrode our ozone layer, someday leading to the cancerous end of millions of us. Nor the invention of the atom bomb. Good and bad come from science, just as it does from any other tool. Wonderful things have come from governmental control, should we give them unlimited ability to rule however they see fit? Of course not. Moderation is absolute key to existance. Until you understand this, you will live in extreme succsess and extreme failure

I could say the exact same thing for your arguement. Except, while I praised science, you just stifle it.

[On top of this, how could you ever live with yourself allowing your child to be ugly? Or, say, homosexual. Or not be a genious. Just dream of the possibilities! We can form the perfect race, and kill anything that is lesser. Instead of humanity, we are creating a scientifically generated species that does not have the same attributes, the same quirks as humanity. You are on a path to take away humanity and replace it with something it is certainly is not.

Are you agreeing with me here, or not. Just so we're on the same page.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Why not make rape legal too? 100s of rapes, not to mention murders and other crimes are shown on national television daily. So what's the difference?

Point being: we should not make something legal just because it will happen anyway.

Hey, you said it, not me.

Dangerous thought

I could say the exact same thing for your arguement. Except, while I praised science, you just stifle it.

The problem is that you praise it. It is nothing more than a tool, that can be horribly abused. I do not wish to stiffle it, only control it in moderation. And when science equates to killing a fetus, that is over stepping boundaries.

Are you agreeing with me here, or not. Just so we're on the same page.

No, I do not agree with you. I think the idea of creating a race that is not humanity is overstepping our role in this earth. I think we have done so many bad things to this planet through science (ozone/global warming) and I think that attempting to create a prefered species is just another destructive and unintended path.

 

[steen]

In fact, to most of us, that's the exact question you are asking. Should I allow this child in my belly to grow up?

Well, "child" is a developmental stage beginning after birth. So emotinally ladden revisionist linguistic hyperbole doesn't do much to further debate, does it now. It makes no more sense to call the embryo a "child" than calling you a senior citizen or a corpse. The developmental stage is wrong.

And the real question is whether the woman herself want to be pregnant or not. That's the only thing that matters.

You don't have the right to make that decision for her. It is her body, and anybody taking the control away from her is enslaving her.

 

[jallman]

If any of you had any clue how genetics really works, you wouldnt even be this far off topic. There is no danger of us cloning a superior race any time in the next gazillion years. You cannot pick and choose genetic characteristics in an undeveloped human because of A) the complexity of the genetic code, and B) the enormous cost of the few procedures we do have. Any attempt to use these arguments against the advancement of science is pure paranoia using science FICTION as the basis.

(In response to 338-340)

 

[jallman]

Well, "child" is a developmental stage beginning after birth. So emotinally ladden revisionist linguistic hyperbole doesn't do much to further debate, does it now. It makes no more sense to call the embryo a "child" than calling you a senior citizen or a corpse. The developmental stage is wrong.

And the real question is whether the woman herself want to be pregnant or not. That's the only thing that matters.

You don't have the right to make that decision for her. It is her body, and anybody taking the control away from her is enslaving her.

Thank you!!! That was a great illustration. And isnt it funny how most of these pro oppressionists are men anyway...like we even have a say over what a woman does with her body to begin with.

The medical community cant even agree on when the fetus develops full human characteristics. There are ranges of thought on the matter that run the whole gambit, from conception until 25-27 weeks (which I do find a little extreme). My personal conclusion from everything I have read is that so long as there is no developed neural activity, then the fetus is not an individual human yet and if the potential mother wants to think of it as a cancer until then, its her perogative.

But as I have said before, its not really even a debate since the supreme court has seen fit to side with the woman and her rights.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Well, "child" is a developmental stage beginning after birth. So emotinally ladden revisionist linguistic hyperbole doesn't do much to further debate, does it now. It makes no more sense to call the embryo a "child" than calling you a senior citizen or a corpse. The developmental stage is wrong.

Sorry cheif, but name me one expected mother that goes around calling what's in her stomach an embryo. Regardless of the scientific labelings, a correct pseudonymn for fetus in common English is child. Nice try though.

And the real question is whether the woman herself want to be pregnant or not. That's the only thing that matters.

I completely agree. And if they choose that they do not wish to be pregnant, then they should not have sex. Simple as that.

You don't have the right to make that decision for her. It is her body, and anybody taking the control away from her is enslaving her.

That's not at all true. She does have the freedom to make that choice. I simply feel that there should be consequences for that choice (i.e. you choose to kill someone, you face jail time). I'm not attempting to enslave anyone, simply to hold them responsible for the deletion of human life. Sorry you don't see the difference, but that is not my short coming.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

If any of you had any clue how genetics really works, you wouldnt even be this far off topic. There is no danger of us cloning a superior race any time in the next gazillion years. You cannot pick and choose genetic characteristics in an undeveloped human because of A) the complexity of the genetic code, and B) the enormous cost of the few procedures we do have. Any attempt to use these arguments against the advancement of science is pure paranoia using science FICTION as the basis.

(In response to 338-340)

A gazilliion years is a long time. Although, to suggest that tweeking traits is on the far off horizon is foolish. Even if one could not pick and choose genetic characterstics you can certainly begin to take notice of them before the child is born. And in this case, you can just delete any characteristics you don't like. No more children apt to have an IQ any lower than average. No more children who have slight deformities or are anything less than a "normal" human being. And again, the question never arrises "why are we doing this, or should we do this?" but rather only that because we can, we should do it. This is absolute stupidity at its very finest. We are set apart from animals because we can judge morality, and yet you wish to through this out the window and simply go based on intellect, which is the characterstic of any lower animal.

 

[steen]

My personal conclusion from everything I have read is that so long as there is no developed neural activity, then the fetus is not an individual human yet and if the potential mother wants to think of it as a cancer until then, its her perogative.

Well, the thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week. There is no neural transmission from the body to the brain's cortex before then.

As for "individual human," that really doesn't occur until self-directed homeostasis which is at birth when the umbilical cord is clamped or cut.

But yes, we are more or less on the same page here.

 

[jallman]

A gazilliion years is a long time. Although, to suggest that tweeking traits is on the far off horizon is foolish. Even if one could not pick and choose genetic characterstics you can certainly begin to take notice of them before the child is born. And in this case, you can just delete any characteristics you don't like. No more children apt to have an IQ any lower than average. No more children who have slight deformities or are anything less than a "normal" human being. And again, the question never arrises "why are we doing this, or should we do this?" but rather only that because we can, we should do it. This is absolute stupidity at its very finest. We are set apart from animals because we can judge morality, and yet you wish to through this out the window and simply go based on intellect, which is the characterstic of any lower animal.

WHOA! Never once did I advocate for genetic manipulation of the populace so just check that argument at the door with the rest of your paranoia. However, I do see nothing wrong with taking note of the characteristics of a child when it comes to genetic disorder and the like. And as I said, if you had a clue how genetic manipulation works, then you would know that to mess with the genome in the womb is more likely to create a catastrophe than to help. I happen to believe in the advancement of science and that it is one of the truly great wonders of humanity. And have you ever heard of the Bioethics Committee? They are a group who decide policies of ethics concerning any kind of research...and they are pretty damned strict. Why dont you try reading up on topic before you start spewing this junk about morality and ethics in science. And please, dont start blurring your science fiction with scientific fact in a debate...it just undermines your credibility.

 

[jallman]

Well, the thalamocortical tract connects at the end of the 26th week. There is no neural transmission from the body to the brain's cortex before then.

As for "individual human," that really doesn't occur until self-directed homeostasis which is at birth when the umbilical cord is clamped or cut.

But yes, we are more or less on the same page here.

WOW, someone who actually has a clue about the science behind fetal development. And what do you know? He/she also happens to be pro choice. Why, because he doesnt let emotion about the "poor murdered baby" guide him in his thought. He thinks about it with science and logical philosophy... oh you pro oppressionists are in trouble now! Looks like I got me a real ally this time.

:2wave: Hi steen, thanks for bringing a level of fact and logic to this debate. Glad you are batting for us!

 

[steen]

Sorry cheif, but name me one expected mother that goes around calling what's in her stomach an embryo.

Personal, subjective emotional impressions are not facts. MY wife callls our dog her "baby." Is it a baby? Your argument doesn't make a lot of sense.

Regardless of the scientific labelings, a correct pseudonymn for fetus in common English is child. Nice try though.

However, when discussing developmental stages, misrepresentations through descritors outside of the current stage is simply dishonest. Yes, I know that such revisionist linguistics is an integral part of the prolife hyperbole, that there is very little prolife reasoning without such distortions, but that is the fault of prolife, not of the rest of us.

I completely agree. And if they choose that they do not wish to be pregnant, then they should not have sex. Simple as that.

Sex is not consent to pregnancy anymore than smoking is consent to lung cancer. Are you saying that we should stop treatment for lung cancer, the unwanted outcome of smoking?

That's not at all true. She does have the freedom to make that choice. I simply feel that there should be consequences for that choice (i.e. you choose to kill someone, you face jail time).

Ah, so you see unwanted pregnancy as the PUNISHMENT for her having sex when you disaprove. Yes, the imposing state determining minute details of a person's private lives.

What should be the consequense of your own actions? Should you be taught a lesson by withholding medical treatment for unwanted outcomes? Ban surgery for lung cancer? Ban treatment for chest pain and heart attacks? ban trauma surgery from traffic accidents?

I'm not attempting to enslave anyone,

You are trying to impose your will onto another person's body and control how that body is being used. That very much is enslavement. That you are duplicitous about it is simply indication that you are not straightforward with us.

simply to hold them responsible for the deletion of human life.

"human life"? A non-sentient bit of tissue. So when we remove atumor, we should be held responsible for the deletion of human life? That's just moralistic, imposing clap-trap.

Sorry you don't see the difference, but that is not my short coming.

ROTFLMAO. Very funny.

 

[steen]

No more children apt to have an IQ any lower than average.

So you chose to ignore the fact of the regression to the mean. Or didn't you know about it?

 

[steen]

:2wave: Hi steen, thanks for bringing a level of fact and logic to this debate. Glad you are batting for us!

Always a pleassure. Looking forward to your posts.

Yes, you will note (Likely you already did) that PL posts often are based on sophistry and emotional expressions rather than (and often contray to) facts. That's to bad, because of course there can be no meaningful conversation on issues that are based on pure hyperbole and wishful thinking.

 

[jallman]

Always a pleassure. Looking forward to your posts.

Yes, you will note (Likely you already did) that PL posts often are based on sophistry and emotional expressions rather than (and often contray to) facts. That's to bad, because of course there can be no meaningful conversation on issues that are based on pure hyperbole and wishful thinking.

Oh you are so correct. And they will also often be the first to spout out total nonsense such as "It may come as a surprise to you that there is no disagreement in the medical community as to when life begins" and "show me scientific fact that life does not begin at conception"...oh oh and my favorite "this is an issue that is solved by pure secular biology." Yet, they are always the first to throw any hard quantifiable fact out the window when it does not suit their emotional rantings. I have long said that the issue of abortion goes much deeper than scientific observation to decide...it involves issues of philosophy, law, science, and for some, even religion. PL's barely scratch the surface because they think infant and fetus are synonymous. How many do you think could even recognize a zygote or even a 4 week fetus if they were shown one? I dont know if you have been following this post up till now...but you are in for some real amusement.

Again, welcome and I am looking forward to reading your informative posts also.

 

[steen]

PL's barely scratch the surface because they think infant and fetus are synonymous.

And they haven't even figured out that it doesn't matter anyway. The woman has a right to control her own bodily resources like the rest of us do. A person doesn't have the right to extract a pint of blood from you against your will, you have the right to control your own bodily resources. As such, even if the fetus was a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use "another person's" bodily resources against their will.

PL spends an inordinate amount of time fudging and distorting the status of the fetus to try to argue against abortion.

And while we correct their distortion, that's all it is, a discussion about correct vocabulary and scientific knowledge. And that is all it is. Because even if everything they ever said had been right, it still wouldn't give the fetus the right to use her bodily resources against her will.

The PL are unable to argue against abortion on ist merit, so they go for the emotional, but very irrelevant proxy instead. Hence, after decades of fact-phobia, they have gotten nowhere.

 

[jallman]

And they haven't even figured out that it doesn't matter anyway. The woman has a right to control her own bodily resources like the rest of us do. A person doesn't have the right to extract a pint of blood from you against your will, you have the right to control your own bodily resources. As such, even if the fetus was a person, it still wouldn't have the right to use "another person's" bodily resources against their will.

PL spends an inordinate amount of time fudging and distorting the status of the fetus to try to argue against abortion.

And while we correct their distortion, that's all it is, a discussion about correct vocabulary and scientific knowledge. And that is all it is. Because even if everything they ever said had been right, it still wouldn't give the fetus the right to use her bodily resources against her will.

The PL are unable to argue against abortion on ist merit, so they go for the emotional, but very irrelevant proxy instead. Hence, after decades of fact-phobia, they have gotten nowhere.

Well I can say that is very well stated. And besides, I will say this again...it really doesnt matter because the Supreme Court saw fit to side with a woman and her rights anyway. But now let me address this...I am not sure what your take on late term abortions is...personally I am against them and do see them as murder. By the time there is neural activity of a significant nature, I feel the woman has had plenty of time to make her decision concerning the pregnancy and that there is a point of no return in the pregnancy. Whats your take?

 

[steen]

I am not sure what your take on late term abortions is...personally I am against them and do see them as murder. By the time there is neural activity of a significant nature, I feel the woman has had plenty of time to make her decision concerning the pregnancy and that there is a point of no return in the pregnancy. Whats your take?

Well, for one, "late-term abortions" is a rather vague term. many take that to mean anythign after 1st trimester.

But in the appropriate setting, as in meaning 3rd trimester, the number is very small to begin with. And the proportion of them specifically for medical emrgencies or major, lethal fetal complications is huge. I wouldn't touch any of them. There may be a few where the woman or girl (other it is girls who finally get through the courts in parental notification issue) simply was in denial or suddenl;y had a change in life circumstances.

Again, in such cases, I am reluctant to make decisions for her, but if at all possible, if she could wait until 32 weeks and labor induction was done, then the preemie can be cared for and adopted out.

And don't forget that adoptions at that time are generally done through induction anyway, resulting essentially in the birth.

Remember that all the procedures that the PL are ranting about are generally 2nd-trimester procedures.

So I guess I am radical enough to feel that medical decisions are not the venue of politicians regardless. Doesn't have to mean that I like what happens, or that I don't think we should encourage the birth if feasible. But WE need to do so. WE need to provide the insentive for the woman to not abort. To merely restrict her because of what we don't want is cowardly. If we don't like it, it is on our shoulders to convince her. Putting force on her and let her carry the burden of our wishes is not acceptable.

My view is that if people don't like what she is doing, it is their job to make it worth her while to follow their wishes.

 

[Fantasea]

This is pure drivel. The medical community does not even agree on when human life begins. You look at a zygote under a microscope and tell me it even remotely resembles a human being. In fact, for the first few weeks of development, it more closely resembles a tadpole. If you would like, I can provide you with links to photographs.

Did I miss your response to post #309?

 

[jallman]

Did I miss your response to post #309?

fantasea...I cant tell what you missed, what you dismissed, and what you simply dont comprehend. Its not my responsibility to keep up with what responses you have read or not.

 

[Fantasea]

Quote:
Originally posted by Fantasea
I can only respond that any person who can label the killing of any child, for any reason, as a noble act, has a truly twisted understanding of both terms.

The next time you come across a disabled person, ask him whether he would prefer to be dead.

I have a better thought, why don't you ask them if there was a chance that if the mother could have known that she'd pass a disease on, she could have had an abortion, instead of condemning the disabled person a life of hardship.

I think abortion is a good alternative Until science can come up with better treatments, or even cures to these illnesses.

Thank you for the non-answer. It's always easier to skip the challenge and substitute one of your own, isn't it?

Quote:
I take it that you are attempting to rationalize the nearly fifty million human children who have died as a result of 'legal' abortions which have occurred since Roe v. Wade.

Your attempt has failed.

Who are you to judge who should be put out of their misery as if you were extending mercy to a severely injured animal?

If those "50 million" people perished as a result of Roe Vs. Wade as you suggest, how would our world look now? Probably at least 1 in every 3 people would be either handicapped, have a severe muscle and brain malformations, and not to mention our world would be fiiled of all ills.

It is obvious by your answer that your knowledge of the subject is limited to the hype pushed by the pro-death crowd. You have never bothered to learn anything by your own investigation.

If you had, you would never have made so ridiculous a statement

.

Quote:
Suffering may be terrible, but it can and should be aleviated. We don't kill cancer patients, do we?

No, they pretty much die themselves, as bad as it sounds, our medicine is still rather primitive, If a woman Knew that she was to give birth to a cancerous child, isn't rather intelligent to abort the baby? Or would you rather it go through life with cancer. We don't have a cure for it, among other ills. When we can cure most illnesses, I would say it is wrong to have an abortion. But for now, we can't, so I won't.

That's right. Drown them just like a litter of unwanted kittens.

What do you know about inter-utero surgery? Nothing, I venture.