Ya, pretty costly and Anti-Choicers will scream bloody murder that their taxes will go up to pay for all this UNnecessary fetus saving....there is no POINT. And then there will have to be a law carved in rock that any woman who is forced to give up her fetus will have NO repercussions financially . She will NEVER have to acknowledge that kid and the kid will NEVER find out who it's biological mother is...afterall, women should have some rights...
Bunch of horseshit. But then, anything from that anti choice site is. I presented a real medical source, not a biased site.
The Anti-Choicers justify almost anything, up to & including murder of doctors, nurses, first responders - in order to block access to abortion. They don't get to cavil @ the price of saving souls, as they put it. (Although I do like the notion of scream bloody murder - well played, sir!) But yes, all this biotech will be expensive, initially. As for find out who it's biological mother is - no, if we can crack fetal transplant & artificial uterus implantation, plus we already have a complete genome for humanity - taking a swab & getting an ID is already doable. With the Internet of Everything, it should be relatively simple to track a single person back to all the data floating around out there. (& of course, you can track the father the same way.)
Yes, I know my "solution " was impractical....as was the suggestion. IF women were required to give their unwanted fetuses to this magic pie-in-the-sky scheme they would have to be monitored every month...that's a fact. Do you think that would go over well? Women would still have abortions.....
Who said anything about required? Not me - I assume that once the process is perfected medically, that people will take advantage of it. & there's nothing magic pie-in-the-sky about it - it's a straight-line extension of logic, extrapolating progress to date in medicine/biology/neonatology. Why would women have to be monitored? By whom, & for what purpose? Yah, women could still opt for abortion - all the medical options would still be on the table. Just as they are now - the only difference is a non-abortion option that isn't currently available.
Why would women want it? They either want the kid or they don't.......why go through all that if a woman doesn't want the kid? If she just doesn't want to be pregnant and deliver there are already others willing to do that for her.....
Why? Why do people want to have their cake & eat it too? It's exactly the same question. The answer is likely to be: Why not? If something is technologically possible, people are apt to @ least consider the possibility. As for surrogate mothers - yes, the possibility is out there. Currently, it's kinda messy & ad hoc - the legal field is still adapting to this kind of service. & it's not clear that the service will be available if the demand ramps up rapidly & especially extends out to more & more of the World. Hence the interest in non-human implantations. Right now, there's also a cost attached to the service - it's more of a one-off kind of transaction, than a service that is commonly available. If we can work out the contractual end & the roles & responsibilities attached to all the parties, the practice may catch on. If not, that's when non-human transfers & implantations will get more study & attention.
So you think women will do it for ships and giggles? Rich women playing games.... Otherwise Why would women want it? They either want the kid or they don't.......why go through all that if a woman doesn't want the kid? A surrogate mother would certainly be cheaper......
Dennis - I have read peer reviewed Journal articles on fetal pain and brain function. Significant Brain function does not happen until after 20 weeks. The idea that "brain waves" of any significance exist in a 8 week old fetus is abject nonsense. Sure there is electrical activity in the developing brain - this is no big deal - there is electrical activity in every human cell.
There are several reasons a woman might want a host mother or other alternative: 1. Disease or cardiac problems - the risk of pregnancy to term might be too high - with danger to her & to the fetus. 2. Implantation problems - genetic, organic problems, disease or otherwise. 3. A history of miscarriages, spontaneous stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, etc. 4. I'm sure there are others. & yes, initially, costs of an alternative host will likely be high - that's part of being a pathfinder.
The "silent scream" was debunked a long time ago! https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110327205235AAELlnE
Apparently the Thalamus is all that is needed for the foetus to feel pain..... http://www.abortionfacts.com/books/why-cant-we-love-them-both
To your satisfaction perhaps...... you might be biased...... but let's take a look at emotional pain for the mother. http://www.abortionfacts.com/books/why-cant-we-love-them-both (chapter 9)
A combination of the nervous system, the Brain, and cognition create the sensation of pain...without all of these and other aspects pain is just a word.
As I said there are surrogate mothers ....and yes, only "pathfinders" will be able to afford them and other alternatives... Personally I don't care, if they have the money of course they'll do what ever they want but it will NOT effect abortion...
The word "debunked" is a very strong word....... thank you for this intelligent response........ the arguments against this film may have some validity........ but they also might just be experts who don't want their colleagues filled with guilt as they are asked to perform the next abortion........ so they are desperately looking for any possible flaws in the film...... slowing down the film at one point.... and speeding it up in another place...... may or may not mean intellectual dishonesty on the part of the film editor....... we all have a short attention span...... I am guilty of this myself....... every film done now has to take that fact into consideration.....
I know of cases where expecting mom's sing and talk continually to their foetus from early on in the pregnancy....... do you really think that they are wasting their time.........? After birth those babies recognize mom's voice... and respond... they must have been hearing something....... Again let's go back to the possible psychological effects of an abortion on the mom.... http://www.abortionfacts.com/books/why-cant-we-love-them-both (Chapter 9)
The film is an OLD, very OLD fake.....It has been proven scientifically untrue........if there was truth to it there would be more AND BETTER examples coming out but Anti-Choicers seem to have to stick to really OLD OLD material .....maybe they can't find anyone nasty enough to make more fake films... That said....your little pet fake film means nothing.....women have a right to have an abortion... Your silly fake films can't do what you want, make slaves of women...
BOY! You're sure coming up with the Way Way Old Trite Crap of the Anti-Women faction. YOU: ""Again let's go back to the possible psychological effects of an abortion on the mom....""" HEY! Let's go back to the psychological effect of pregnancy, childbirth, and raising children has on women !!!!! HEY! Let's go back to the psychological effect of marriage to a sexist prat who thinks women are nothing but broodstock. Hey! Let's go back to the psychological effects of being poor and having kids to take care of ! EXCEPT it's NONE OF OUR BUSINESS......... Who do you think you are that you can choose what women do with their lives?????
No you do not "Know" these things you read about them at best. A born baby will respond to everyone around it regardless of singing. And hoe do you KNOW they recognize Mommys voice unless you ask them? How about we go back to the "Possible" psychological effects of forcing the Mom to use her body as you tell her to.
Actually..... I convinced both my wife as well as my daughter in law of the benefits of doing this....... I also sang some to my daughter while she was in the womb.... and she calmed and quieted when I sang again to her after she was born.....
Notice the title of the thread..... Brilliant pro-life arguments! .... notice the s on the end of arguments........ what were you expecting when you got into this discussion? Ms. Denise Mountenay is an online friend of mine who I have spoken to by phone...... she did have several abortions when she was younger...... she is warning women about this aspect of the formula that the medical community tends to ignore...... I believe due to guilt...... http://canadasilentnomore.com/abortion-testimonies/
More anti-abortion disinformation! /sigh About a million women each and every year and if you are going to allege that these women are twice as suicidal as the average then where are the credible non partisan statistics to prove it? This was debunked by St Reagan's surgeon general in the 1980's! https://www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2013...t-increase-womens-risk-mental-health-problems So next up you are going to allege that abortion causes breast cancer? Save yourself the embarrassment and check it out for yourself and you will see that anti abortion BS has been debunked as well.
Does this sound like how many young women are treated during and after an abortion? http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/a...fore-the-south-dakota-task-force-on-abortion/
I hadn't heard about that link until about a year ago but since you asked...... http://www.canadasilentnomore.com/a...east-cancer-link-to-abortion-is-significant!/
