Possible solution?

[minnie616]

Exceptions don't make the rule. Show me where abortion and escaping poverty are linked.

.

I’m not making that argument.

Choice allows the women to better time when she wants to become a mother.

 

[Fishking]

The irony is, if the fetus vat were invented, it would be used to grow soldiers, cheapening life to a greater degree than abortion ever could.

I'll concede this point that it seems humans are at their best when they are weaponizing advancements.

BTW, the phrase "unborn baby" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "unbaked cake". Until the cake is baked it's just a pan full of batter. But, your goal is not to be right, it's to be insulting. So, yeah...

This is just a silly statement. It's a baby 1 second outside the mom but 1 second before it's an unbaked cake. Anyways...I'm bored with this. It's not like I'm going to change anyone's mind w/regard to them wanting to kill babies.

 

[year2late]

Exceptions don't make the rule. Show me where abortion and escaping poverty are linked.
.

Both my parents worked as social workers for 30 plus years a piece in a major metropolitan area.

The easiest way for a woman to enter the poverty cycle was to have a child when she was not financially, socially, or mature enough to handle the situation.

I am not sure as a social worker that this escaped you. Were you a social worker in an affluent area with alot of extra resources?

Some women did well with bridge programs to get off of welfare. Most did not fair that well.

That is why I am totally on board with improving safety, accessibility, and availability of long term contraception.

 

[D_NATURED]

I'll concede this point that it seems humans are at their best when they are weaponizing advancements.

Ahh, no recognition for how war-something overwhelmingly supported by the right- cheapens actual life. Instead, you would consider them "at their best" if they use the vat to create human drones. LOL. You don't even realize how much you prove my point.

This is just a silly statement. It's a baby 1 second outside the mom but 1 second before it's an unbaked cake.

No, one minute before birth it's a health/life risk for a woman, not a cake, never a cake. That's the problem with using analogies on those committed to their mistakes, they are as likely to play dumb. Well done.

Anyways...I'm bored with this. It's not like I'm going to change anyone's mind w/regard to them wanting to kill babies.

I see you never get bored of allowing hyperbole to define your argument. By that standard of discourse, we should just agree that what you call "babies" are invasive biological entities with absolutely no regard for the lives of the women they threaten. They are amoral, self-interested parasites, mindlessly drawing resources and life itself from millions of rights-endowed women over the course of human history.

It's too bad your active imagination conveniently falls short when it comes to protecting women from the things that kill them. How cruel of you to look right through them with your cheap, immoral fetus x-ray glasses, purchased from an ad in the back of Woman Haters Christian Quarterly. How can you feel good about such a narrow and dogmatic opinion? Oh yeah, god authorizes such lies if they're for a good cause, like controlling women.

 

[Fishking]

Ahh, no recognition for how war-something overwhelmingly supported by the right- cheapens actual life. Instead, you would consider them "at their best" if they use the vat to create human drones. LOL. You don't even realize how much you prove my point.

Apparently that comment went over your head, judging by your response in thinking that wasn't a tongue-in-cheek turn of phrase. Btw...both parties are war parties, with the left being the original war party. My how you've been played to think what you think.

 

[Lursa]

Anyways...I'm bored with this. It's not like I'm going to change anyone's mind w/regard to them wanting to kill babies.

:roll:

The OP was about a possible solution to abortion. And you dropped that focus like a hot potato to instead hone in on the tired, old self-righteous rhetoric that everyone's heard a million times before....and is nothing more than resentful hyperbole. Well you're right...that old crap is boring.

 

[D_NATURED]

Apparently that comment went over your head, judging by your response in thinking that wasn't a tongue-in-cheek turn of phrase. Btw...both parties are war parties, with the left being the original war party. My how you've been played to think what you think.

Well, America is a war loving nation. Our economy runs on foreign blood and has for many decades. However, for the party that claims the pro-life movement, without any tongues in any cheeks, to also be the open-ended military spenders is a glaring contradiction.

It doesn't take much to notice which politicians are always accusing their rivals of being anti-military while simultaneously weeping over the fetal "genocide". It just seems like you didn't show any appreciation to the obvious flaw in your equivocation.

 

[Removable Mind]

Well, America is a war loving nation. Our economy runs on foreign blood and has for many decades. However, for the party that claims the pro-life movement, without any tongues in any cheeks, to also be the open-ended military spenders is a glaring contradiction.

It doesn't take much to notice which politicians are always accusing their rivals of being anti-military while simultaneously weeping over the fetal "genocide". It just seems like you didn't show any appreciation to the obvious flaw in your equivocation.

Much like the Vatican is against birth control because reproduction is essential in continuing to proliferate its membership to keep ylthe collection plates filled, the government needs to ensure that they continue to grow the future populations of soldiers.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

Well, America is a war loving nation. Our economy runs on foreign blood and has for many decades. However, for the party that claims the pro-life movement, without any tongues in any cheeks, to also be the open-ended military spenders is a glaring contradiction.

It doesn't take much to notice which politicians are always accusing their rivals of being anti-military while simultaneously weeping over the fetal "genocide". It just seems like you didn't show any appreciation to the obvious flaw in your equivocation.

All your country does is go around and steal resources to sustain your Capitalism and it's amazing how many Americans are so easily indoctrinated by whatever is put right in front of them without even questioning it.

 

[Fishking]

Well, America is a war loving nation.

We didn't use to be. Pre-WWII we were pretty anti-war, at least in regards to getting involved in other people's/country's wars not our own.

 

[Fishking]

:roll:

The OP was about a possible solution to abortion. And you dropped that focus like a hot potato to instead hone in on the tired, old self-righteous rhetoric that everyone's heard a million times before....and is nothing more than resentful hyperbole. Well you're right...that old crap is boring.

Yeah...no one wanted to talk about the OP. I tried to keep it in that realm and all they wanted to do was say, "Nuh-uh! Gimme abortions." and disregard the OP. Again, it's boring at this point. The anti-life crowd always gets up to fight for the right to kill.

 

[year2late]

Yeah...no one wanted to talk about the OP. I tried to keep it in that realm and all they wanted to do was say, "Nuh-uh! Gimme abortions." and disregard the OP. Again, it's boring at this point. The anti-life crowd always gets up to fight for the right to kill.

Wow.

Is that what you heard?

The technology and finances are one issue. The finances of the situation paying for a major procedure or surgery to safely transfer the embryo or fetus and umbilical cord and placenta safely to the artificial womb and then paying for the process is the first deal breaker. We are all but having fist fights over whether health care is a right and this would make this process an expectation.

The second major issue is the complete lack of understanding what it would take to safely remove the fetus, umbilical cord, placenta from the womb and transfer it to the womb. It would be a major procedure or even surgery that would be essentially like a c-section.

An abortion is a very minor procedure in terms of time and risk for the patient. Does not even require an IV or anesthesia. The procedure necessary to remove the embryo/fetus, umbilical cord, and placenta safe and intact would require a long (read increased maternal risk)procedure time or a surgery (like c-section) with all the inherent risks of anesthesia and surgery.

The artificial womb thing seems to make sense to some.....but as an idea that it would be a forced option (either carry to term or transfer to artificial womb) is just insane.

All the mental gymnastics in the world cannot make that pragmatic in the least.

What is pragmatic....improving long term contraception - make it safer and more accessible financially to those who cannot afford it. Also make an option that is safe and accessible for men!!!!

 

[Fishking]

Wow.

Is that what you heard?

The technology and finances are one issue. The finances of the situation paying for a major procedure or surgery to safely transfer the embryo or fetus and umbilical cord and placenta safely to the artificial womb and then paying for the process is the first deal breaker. We are all but having fist fights over whether health care is a right and this would make this process an expectation.

The second major issue is the complete lack of understanding what it would take to safely remove the fetus, umbilical cord, placenta from the womb and transfer it to the womb. It would be a major procedure or even surgery that would be essentially like a c-section.

An abortion is a very minor procedure in terms of time and risk for the patient. Does not even require an IV or anesthesia. The procedure necessary to remove the embryo/fetus, umbilical cord, and placenta safe and intact would require a long (read increased maternal risk)procedure time or a surgery (like c-section) with all the inherent risks of anesthesia and surgery.

The artificial womb thing seems to make sense to some.....but as an idea that it would be a forced option (either carry to term or transfer to artificial womb) is just insane.

All the mental gymnastics in the world cannot make that pragmatic in the least.

What is pragmatic....improving long term contraception - make it safer and more accessible financially to those who cannot afford it. Also make an option that is safe and accessible for men!!!!

Lol...you question my summary and then what did you do? You just confirmed it. Epic.

 

[year2late]

Lol...you question my summary and then what did you do? You just confirmed it. Epic.

Explain how I confirmed your summary.

You say "gimme abortions" is the theme? My answer was to prevent unwanted pregnancy. How does that even come close to gel with your notion?

 

[Fishking]

Explain how I confirmed your summary.

You say "gimme abortions" is the theme? My answer was to prevent unwanted pregnancy. How does that even come close to gel with your notion?

I said that no one wanted to talk about the premise of the OP, which you then proceeded to say we couldn't do the premise of the OP. Then you talked about birth control. Birth control would reduce but still wouldn't stop abortion. People would either still not use it, use it improperly, or maybe think they want to get pregnant but then don't afterwards. So where does that leave us? Oh... "Gimme more abortions."

Though, I will say that improved birth control, and it's implementation, is the most reasonable method that will reduce abortions as I don't think the artificial womb or laws stopping abortions are going to happen anytime soon.

 

[year2late]

I said that no one wanted to talk about the premise of the OP, which you then proceeded to say we couldn't do the premise of the OP. Then you talked about birth control. Birth control would reduce but still wouldn't stop abortion. People would either still not use it, use it improperly, or maybe think they want to get pregnant but then don't afterwards. So where does that leave us? Oh... "Gimme more abortions."

Though, I will say that improved birth control, and it's implementation, is the most reasonable method that will reduce abortions as I don't think the artificial womb or laws stopping abortions are going to happen anytime soon.

I did discuss it.

I dismissed it because it was not feasible for the reasons I suggested.

I suggested a pragmatic approach.

 

[Lursa]

Yeah...no one wanted to talk about the OP.

Um, I did. You ignored 3 separate responses to 3 different points specifically about the OP from me. They were numbered and everything.

I tried to keep it in that realm and all they wanted to do was say, "Nuh-uh! Gimme abortions." and disregard the OP. Again, it's boring at this point. The anti-life crowd always gets up to fight for the right to kill.

Valuing women's lives more than the unborn's makes pro-choice people 'anti-life?'

Huh. So then how does valuing the unborn's lives more than women's lives NOT make pro-lifers anti-life?

Some people, like pro-choice supporters, also value quality of life over quantity.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Yeah...no one wanted to talk about the OP. I tried to keep it in that realm and all they wanted to do was say, "Nuh-uh! Gimme abortions." and disregard the OP. Again, it's boring at this point. The anti-life crowd always gets up to fight for the right to kill.

I don't know anyone who is anti-life.

 

[minnie616]

Yeah...no one wanted to talk about the OP. I tried to keep it in that realm and all they wanted to do was say, "Nuh-uh! Gimme abortions." and disregard the OP. Again, it's boring at this point. The anti-life crowd always gets up to fight for the right to kill.

The OP was about taking the right to privacy away from Women and forcing her to undergo a major risky surgery to remove an embryo or fetus.


Apparently , some posters think a vat or an artifical womb would void Roe v Wade.

Not so.

 

[Lursa]

The OP was about taking the right to privacy away from Women and forcing her to undergo a major risky surgery to remove an embryo or fetus.


Apparently , some posters think a vat or an artifical womb would void Roe v Wade.

Not so.

But we never even got that far :doh The focus is always on the technology, no one ever answers if pregnant women would be *required* to submit to the procedure and about the (unConstitutional) legal conditions that would be necessary to do that.

They blow off the costs to the taxpayers and we saw how a self-proclaimed social worked 'expert' just reinforced the fact that adoption wouldnt be the answer for the born babies.

 

[year2late]

The OP was about taking the right to privacy away from Women and forcing her to undergo a major risky surgery to remove an embryo or fetus.


Apparently , some posters think a vat or an artifical womb would void Roe v Wade.

Not so.

he was whining about not talking about the subject.

Just because we do not believe the suggestion to be a reasonable replacement for abortion does not mean we are not discussing it.

Hint. This is a discussion board with a debate focus. We are SUPPOSED to be presenting differing opinions.

I negated the suggestion for the same reasons as many. In addition I negated it because the cost would be enormous before you even consider the amount needed to maintain the artificial womb. Hell, we can't even see our way to making sure all Americans have health care coverage for the born...then all of a sudden we are supposed to be paying billions for this? Seriously?

 

[year2late]

But we never even got that far :doh The focus is always on the technology, no one ever answers if pregnant women would be *required* to submit to the procedure and about the (unConstitutional) legal conditions that would be necessary to do that.

They blow off the costs to the taxpayers and we saw how a self-proclaimed social worked 'expert' just reinforced the fact that adoption wouldnt be the answer for the born babies.

I wonder how many of the people supporting the artificial womb do not think health care is a right for the born individuals. They certainly seem to be demanding it for the fetus.

Why can't we just develop safer and more available/affordable long term options? And availability of the same for men? Those things are do-able in the relative short term and do not force medical procedures on women.....do not force pregnancy on women.

 

[TheGoverness]

he was whining about not talking about the subject.

But what about the predicate?

 

[Lursa]

he was whining about not talking about the subject.

Just because we do not believe the suggestion to be a reasonable replacement for abortion does not mean we are not discussing it.

Hint. This is a discussion board with a debate focus. We are SUPPOSED to be presenting differing opinions.

I negated the suggestion for the same reasons as many. In addition I negated it because the cost would be enormous before you even consider the amount needed to maintain the artificial womb. Hell, we can't even see our way to making sure all Americans have health care coverage for the born...then all of a sudden we are supposed to be paying billions for this? Seriously?

This "solution" has been proposed before and I think it's a worthwhile discussion if people arent familiar with it. Obviously, since people keep bringing it up, they think it's worth considering. And yet, the OP abandoned it without much followup.

It keeps coming up because it sounds good on the surface. Yet people balk when we get into the realities of it. Hey...if people can show how or why this would work...fine. Let's see it! I asked questions in my initial response here...but people seem to get mad when the answers arent simple...or workable.

 

[D_NATURED]

Much like the Vatican is against birth control because reproduction is essential in continuing to proliferate its membership to keep ylthe collection plates filled, the government needs to ensure that they continue to grow the future populations of soldiers.

Yes, don't get me started with the Vatican either. A more two-faced organization has never existed.