Saline solution is outdated. I won't say that it's never used anywhere, but it is not common anymore since they have much better methods. Yes, I still support the right of women to have abortions.
@pyrrho314, im an emt and nursing student, you cannot take a two week baby out and save it. So ur theory on keeping the embryo alive is out. You say we have the right to remove anything from our bodies, let me tell you this. In an abortion they burn the baby with saliene solution, which lasts for around 24 hrs and after that, they tear it apart with a hook, so does anyone here still support abortion. Youtube this " abortion survivor" you will be amazed.
You said you have your opinion based on medical reasons. Currently we don't have artificial wombs so removing a human fetus would be allowing it to die and trying to take away blame by calling it a "removal" and "I have no control over what happens after it is removed so it is not my fault" is not a valid argument for putting the human fetus at risk.
There are laws against endangering lives whether it is technically your action that caused the death or it just could not survive in the new environment. It was the person's action that caused them to be in the new environment so they are responsible for that decision. Science shows that as early as the Zygote the organism IS considered a living Human Being. A zygote meets all the scientific criteria for an individual living organism.
science can't show when it's considerered an independent being. The mother is also a human being and the point at which it is not a part of her being is not a matter of science.
as to being living, the egg and sperm are also, already, living. They carry the torch of life. Science tells us how this torch is passed along, but not when our protections to individual humans apply. We have to decide that ourselves.
"A women's purpose is mothering"... That's kind of archaic, not to be rude or anything.
If a women wants to have children, that's her choice, if a women can't afford to bring a kid into this world, doesn't want to, or wants an abortion because she was raped, or for any other reason, that's 100%, her choice. I think it's sad people think they should be forced to carry a baby for 9 months, especially if they were raped.
Women can be whatever they want to be, they don't have to be mothers.
That's religious ideology, in a sense it's the effect religion has had on the world, look down on women, they're sex objects, only there to bring children into the world, which is why many people think that it is murder to have an abortion.
I believe, the only answers are the ones we find for ourselves, and at the very end of this debate, I always come back to: It's the persons choice, regardless of how I feel, and I shouldn't have the right to interfere with their answer.
I don't believe life is precious, a large amount of people in this world become self-centered egotistical morons, who mindlessly walk into mainstream society, very few people decide to challenge themselves mentally or ask themselves "Just because he says that's the truth, is it really?"
Anyway, what it really comes down to is the people that are having sex, using the correct protection, if they can't do something that simple, well, the next surgery to consider would be having their tubes tied.
I think you mischaracterize yourself. You are not pro-"choice". When it comes to removal of a fetus, it is a choice, but abortion is hardly just a removal. Also, by law you cannot remove anything from your own body e.g. your brain, or your heart. It would be called euthanasia if you did that, which is still illegal. The difference is death of an alive person. When it is a medical related situation, 'mom or baby lives' choice - its not really a choice. Its a tragic situation.
I agree it's tragic... but I do support the idea that someone can remove something from their body... but if that fetus can live outside the mother, it should not be killed imo.
Why is there even a question of killing? Unless the prochoicers are prodeath, that is. Also faintstarlite, seems to have seen the extremes of pro-lifers. Almost no pro-lifer supports forcing a woman to keep the baby in cases of rape, incest or medical life-death situations. Similarly, most prochoicers are stuck on "the woman's right", nothing about the man's right or the child's right - Sadly these are the same people that do everything in family court "in the best interests of the children"
"Almost no pro-lifer supports forcing a woman to keep the baby in cases of rape, incest ..."
How is a baby conceived through rape or incest any less a life than any other life they claim to want to protect?
I have more respect for those who also oppose it in those cases. At least their position is consistent.
Seems to me that those who would make a distinction are less concerned with life than they are with making a woman suffer the consequences of having gotten pregnant.
Actually the element of force is what I was emphasizing on. Yes, I know that advocating for all life is more consistent, but the rothbard's eviction system is much more attractive than abortion-anti-abortion posturing.
I had not heard of Rothbard, but after a few minutes reading I get the idea that his approach is at least very similar to mine ultimately, at least as regards pregnancy. Not sure about the right to abandonment in general. The woman has a right to remove anything from her body. The implication there though is that if the fetus can survive, it can be kept alive, removed but still preserved based on its development and technology as well.
There are some practical problems and iffy implications.
The difference is....in most abortion cases it is simply because the mother does not wish to be pregnant for whatever reason. In rape/incest cases it is like PTSD that you have to relive the attack every second you see your stomach. I know a girl who kept her baby after a rape and she loves him dearly. She is different than someone who looked at their child and only sees their attacker. THAT is the difference. It's the exception to the rule. Even science can be inconsistant with exceptions.
Also one last point (sorry to fill your comment space) is this: If a ban were enforced many problems would soon emerge... Our sex craze in America, overpopulation, poverty cycles, and many other draw backs of a baby boom. Right now the leading killer of African Americans is abortion! If we ended this process we would be required to deal with the clear issue in another way such as abstinence education and other measures with positive influences.
no apology is necessary, please contribute as much as you like.
I recognize the gravity of the issue, but as I said above, I think medical autonomy means a person can remove anything within their body, living or otherwise.
... (cont) all aborted babies have the same potential that you do if not more. Every human has the right to life. It's in the constitution as well as UN doctrine. Since every fetus as much potential as you, how can we allow its destruction? (Assuming its not threatening the mother)
I am not conceited about this issue. I think it's difficult, and in a land of the free, often that means INDIVIDUALS make the decision, rather than one decision for all... and the problem is to decide who it should be that gets the decision (i.e. the spouse decides if you stay on life support).
as for potential... every sperm and egg has potential too, certainly we don't protect those as humans.
A sperm or egg left alone under normal conditions will not turn into a human. At the point of conception this changes however a person (or American) is being created. You may see it as a tumor or appendix but the truth is... tumors don't turn into Americans... In the land of the free basic rights are protected among these is life. A (medical) appendix is not a separate human life form. I withdraw the conceded comment due to the humility of your comment response...
if left alone? if left alone? a zygote does not turn into an American if "left alone" either.
I only say a woman has the right to remove something, anything, from her body. If it can stay alive on its own, it has the right to be allowed to do so. Indeed, if you want to grow it in an artificial womb, I'm not against that either.
First of all, you appear a bit conceded in this video... you cant be 30 years old and life makes so much sense to you... an issue affecting millions of lives in America seems not to affect you because it makes so much sense to you... anyhow the simple problem is this... there is a distinct difference between a appendix and a separate life...
that and worse is coming... mankind needs to figure out how to live justly with mankind itself because the tools of Orwellian oppression are right around the corner... they will come, and only if we are able to live without abusing them will we be free, imo.
I haven't watched the video you are speaking about. I don't have to. When you've been a pregnant teenager, other's opinions mean nothing. It comes down to personal decisions....if your willing to face your friends and family. What you are willing to sacrifice to become a good single parent. If you can withstand all the negativity. True, some girls can't. I pity them. I never regretted having my daughter: not even once. For me, it was worth everything.
Oh, I think I know what you mean. I was short. "I don't have to" because for me its a life experience. What I did I don't regret; therefore, have no internal strife in this area. Also, living the experience "in that moment" and hearing others speak of it is two different things. Thats why "unwed mothers" respond so negatively.
doga: she didn't mean it that way, she meant she had an opinion to give even if it was out of context to what I replied to. She just meant she had a response in general and to my video without having seen the one I was responding to... I think.
Exactly. I do respect other's opinions regarding the abortion debate. Only it's no longer a debate for me. True, the response is out of context but it was an honest reaction to pyrrho's video only. If I insulted anyone I do apologise.
Saline solution is outdated. I won't say that it's never used anywhere, but it is not common anymore since they have much better methods. Yes, I still support the right of women to have abortions.
aislynnmidnight 1 year ago
@pyrrho314, im an emt and nursing student, you cannot take a two week baby out and save it. So ur theory on keeping the embryo alive is out. You say we have the right to remove anything from our bodies, let me tell you this. In an abortion they burn the baby with saliene solution, which lasts for around 24 hrs and after that, they tear it apart with a hook, so does anyone here still support abortion. Youtube this " abortion survivor" you will be amazed.
jo3jo3221 1 year ago
Thank you for making a rational argument!!!!! I have grown tired of reading one sided delusional beliefs.
thislovefromhell 1 year ago
does anybody know any organizations working to develope this technology? i would love to donate to such a cause.
leiapeison 3 years ago
You said you have your opinion based on medical reasons. Currently we don't have artificial wombs so removing a human fetus would be allowing it to die and trying to take away blame by calling it a "removal" and "I have no control over what happens after it is removed so it is not my fault" is not a valid argument for putting the human fetus at risk.
Chipwhitley274 3 years ago
There are laws against endangering lives whether it is technically your action that caused the death or it just could not survive in the new environment. It was the person's action that caused them to be in the new environment so they are responsible for that decision. Science shows that as early as the Zygote the organism IS considered a living Human Being. A zygote meets all the scientific criteria for an individual living organism.
Chipwhitley274 3 years ago
science can't show when it's considerered an independent being. The mother is also a human being and the point at which it is not a part of her being is not a matter of science.
as to being living, the egg and sperm are also, already, living. They carry the torch of life. Science tells us how this torch is passed along, but not when our protections to individual humans apply. We have to decide that ourselves.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
"A women's purpose is mothering"... That's kind of archaic, not to be rude or anything.
If a women wants to have children, that's her choice, if a women can't afford to bring a kid into this world, doesn't want to, or wants an abortion because she was raped, or for any other reason, that's 100%, her choice. I think it's sad people think they should be forced to carry a baby for 9 months, especially if they were raped.
Women can be whatever they want to be, they don't have to be mothers.
JohnMD2K 3 years ago
That's religious ideology, in a sense it's the effect religion has had on the world, look down on women, they're sex objects, only there to bring children into the world, which is why many people think that it is murder to have an abortion.
I believe, the only answers are the ones we find for ourselves, and at the very end of this debate, I always come back to: It's the persons choice, regardless of how I feel, and I shouldn't have the right to interfere with their answer.
JohnMD2K 3 years ago
I don't believe life is precious, a large amount of people in this world become self-centered egotistical morons, who mindlessly walk into mainstream society, very few people decide to challenge themselves mentally or ask themselves "Just because he says that's the truth, is it really?"
Anyway, what it really comes down to is the people that are having sex, using the correct protection, if they can't do something that simple, well, the next surgery to consider would be having their tubes tied.
JohnMD2K 3 years ago
I think you mischaracterize yourself. You are not pro-"choice". When it comes to removal of a fetus, it is a choice, but abortion is hardly just a removal. Also, by law you cannot remove anything from your own body e.g. your brain, or your heart. It would be called euthanasia if you did that, which is still illegal. The difference is death of an alive person. When it is a medical related situation, 'mom or baby lives' choice - its not really a choice. Its a tragic situation.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I agree it's tragic... but I do support the idea that someone can remove something from their body... but if that fetus can live outside the mother, it should not be killed imo.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
Why is there even a question of killing? Unless the prochoicers are prodeath, that is. Also faintstarlite, seems to have seen the extremes of pro-lifers. Almost no pro-lifer supports forcing a woman to keep the baby in cases of rape, incest or medical life-death situations. Similarly, most prochoicers are stuck on "the woman's right", nothing about the man's right or the child's right - Sadly these are the same people that do everything in family court "in the best interests of the children"
utubehayter 3 years ago 2
"Almost no pro-lifer supports forcing a woman to keep the baby in cases of rape, incest ..."
How is a baby conceived through rape or incest any less a life than any other life they claim to want to protect?
I have more respect for those who also oppose it in those cases. At least their position is consistent.
Seems to me that those who would make a distinction are less concerned with life than they are with making a woman suffer the consequences of having gotten pregnant.
TheNakedAtheist 3 years ago
Actually the element of force is what I was emphasizing on. Yes, I know that advocating for all life is more consistent, but the rothbard's eviction system is much more attractive than abortion-anti-abortion posturing.
utubehayter 3 years ago
I had not heard of Rothbard, but after a few minutes reading I get the idea that his approach is at least very similar to mine ultimately, at least as regards pregnancy. Not sure about the right to abandonment in general. The woman has a right to remove anything from her body. The implication there though is that if the fetus can survive, it can be kept alive, removed but still preserved based on its development and technology as well.
There are some practical problems and iffy implications.
pyrrho314 3 years ago
I'm pro-life but I don't feel any woman should be forced to keep a child whether she was raped or NOT. This is what adoption agencies are for.
Elizabeth01010101 3 years ago
"I'm pro-life but I don't feel any woman should be forced to keep a child whether she was raped or NOT. This is what adoption agencies are for."
When I said "suffer the consequences" I meant having to carry the child for 9 months, and I think utubehayter meant the same in his/her comment.
TheNakedAtheist 3 years ago
The difference is....in most abortion cases it is simply because the mother does not wish to be pregnant for whatever reason. In rape/incest cases it is like PTSD that you have to relive the attack every second you see your stomach. I know a girl who kept her baby after a rape and she loves him dearly. She is different than someone who looked at their child and only sees their attacker. THAT is the difference. It's the exception to the rule. Even science can be inconsistant with exceptions.
ajohns92 2 years ago
Also one last point (sorry to fill your comment space) is this: If a ban were enforced many problems would soon emerge... Our sex craze in America, overpopulation, poverty cycles, and many other draw backs of a baby boom. Right now the leading killer of African Americans is abortion! If we ended this process we would be required to deal with the clear issue in another way such as abstinence education and other measures with positive influences.
mackjack32 4 years ago
no apology is necessary, please contribute as much as you like.
I recognize the gravity of the issue, but as I said above, I think medical autonomy means a person can remove anything within their body, living or otherwise.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
... (cont) all aborted babies have the same potential that you do if not more. Every human has the right to life. It's in the constitution as well as UN doctrine. Since every fetus as much potential as you, how can we allow its destruction? (Assuming its not threatening the mother)
mackjack32 4 years ago
I am not conceited about this issue. I think it's difficult, and in a land of the free, often that means INDIVIDUALS make the decision, rather than one decision for all... and the problem is to decide who it should be that gets the decision (i.e. the spouse decides if you stay on life support).
as for potential... every sperm and egg has potential too, certainly we don't protect those as humans.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
A sperm or egg left alone under normal conditions will not turn into a human. At the point of conception this changes however a person (or American) is being created. You may see it as a tumor or appendix but the truth is... tumors don't turn into Americans... In the land of the free basic rights are protected among these is life. A (medical) appendix is not a separate human life form. I withdraw the conceded comment due to the humility of your comment response...
mackjack32 4 years ago
if left alone? if left alone? a zygote does not turn into an American if "left alone" either.
I only say a woman has the right to remove something, anything, from her body. If it can stay alive on its own, it has the right to be allowed to do so. Indeed, if you want to grow it in an artificial womb, I'm not against that either.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
First of all, you appear a bit conceded in this video... you cant be 30 years old and life makes so much sense to you... an issue affecting millions of lives in America seems not to affect you because it makes so much sense to you... anyhow the simple problem is this... there is a distinct difference between a appendix and a separate life...
mackjack32 4 years ago
Your video reminded me a bit of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World." Anyway, you made some great points. An interesting perspective.
RedCeltic 4 years ago
Artificial womb, there's a scary thought. Infinite army right there.
dogatron 4 years ago
that and worse is coming... mankind needs to figure out how to live justly with mankind itself because the tools of Orwellian oppression are right around the corner... they will come, and only if we are able to live without abusing them will we be free, imo.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I think they've been seen as around the corner for too long. Maybe they're here already. When do/Do we draw the line between free and oppressed?
dogatron 4 years ago
my guess: there is no line
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I haven't watched the video you are speaking about. I don't have to. When you've been a pregnant teenager, other's opinions mean nothing. It comes down to personal decisions....if your willing to face your friends and family. What you are willing to sacrifice to become a good single parent. If you can withstand all the negativity. True, some girls can't. I pity them. I never regretted having my daughter: not even once. For me, it was worth everything.
Cherri59 4 years ago
I haven't read your comment. I don't have to.......
dogatron 4 years ago
Meaning.....?
Cherri59 4 years ago
Oh, I think I know what you mean. I was short. "I don't have to" because for me its a life experience. What I did I don't regret; therefore, have no internal strife in this area. Also, living the experience "in that moment" and hearing others speak of it is two different things. Thats why "unwed mothers" respond so negatively.
Cherri59 4 years ago
doga: she didn't mean it that way, she meant she had an opinion to give even if it was out of context to what I replied to. She just meant she had a response in general and to my video without having seen the one I was responding to... I think.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Exactly. I do respect other's opinions regarding the abortion debate. Only it's no longer a debate for me. True, the response is out of context but it was an honest reaction to pyrrho's video only. If I insulted anyone I do apologise.
Cherri59 4 years ago
nah no need to apologise. I was tired and read your response (twice) wrong and thought you'd come to some objective truth on abortion. I apologise.
dogatron 4 years ago
cool
pyrrho314 4 years ago