Technology as a solution to the abortion debate?

Once the French abortion pill becomes generic and cheaper, this won't be an issue anymore.

Then aborting will be like taking an aspirin for a headache.

 

Meh. My claim that the gestating human is a rights-bearing entity is based on its species-being, not on any metaphysical claims of it as a rights-bearing personal subject. If you want to dispute that, go ahead.

Gaah, the hypocrisy and raw cynicism of this statement is just hideous. It was Choicers who claimed - for decades and in the teeth of both science and common sense - that the fetus "wasn't alive." Now you want to try to turn this argument on us?? Just spare me.

 

Now this may well happen, but it contravenes my claim that the solution I propose is one which preserves intact the fundamental rights of all concerned parties. You evidently are not interested in a compromise. In any event, per my hypothesis such drugs would be contraband. They would be legally actionable just as having abortion procedures would be.

 

No, of course not.

- ?? You lost me there.

 

A woman and her puzzy are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

This is the main problem with Roe v. Wade. So it is bad law.

The States should therefore be able to decide on their own.

But with the French abortion pill this will all become academic.

 

A fetus is not a person.

If you cannot accept the science if you cannot accept the science then your arguments are wholly religious and in this country you do not get to use the government to enforce your religious beliefs.

 

It's your argument carried to its logical conclusion.

 

From a purely technological viewpoint this is actually pretty cool. In regards to how it relates to the abortion debate I don't see much impact. Generally speaking though I do see positive things as long as, and this is important, the government does not force this option on women. That is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. But, giving a woman an extra option especially one that might mitigate potential guilt while at the same time making it easier and more affordable to adopt could be a good thing.

 

To force this procedure on women against their will would be barbaric

 

So far you think this thread is about you making a statement and no one should disagree with you or ask a question about your Big Plan.

You ignored my comment about compromise, you seem to ignore anything you can't handle...

Starts out fairly good and then devolves to :

.

What idiocy! There is no infant in abortion.....WTF are you talking about?

Why do you ASSume women are traumatized by an abortion, most are relieved, that's why they have them DUH.


No, a FORCED procedure ,( YOU wouldn't want to be forced to have a medical procedure but think women should which is Total Misogyny,) is NOT an "alternative"...it's taking away women's rights a BIG ISSUE that you try to ignore (as you do quite a few inconvenient things)

You never had the guts to admit YOU wouldn't want to be forced to have a medical procedure....why do you think other Americans shouldn't have the same right you do? Because they're women and not that important?

Please read post 13, it really is quite good

 

Yup, most Anti-Choicers are exactly like that....this guy's no different... he also thinks no one will mind paying for the procedure, the care , or 18 years of millions of kid's lives..

 

WTF are you talking about? I am a lefty...I fight against righties trying to infringe on women's rights...don't tell me you're one of those "Oh well how about Lefties and gun control, blah blahblah" and try to tie that into abortion rights somehow....I'm not interested, I have to go clean my guns..........I thought you had more than that crap...

 

Except it would be a horribly expensive procedure...who pays? The OP wants to force women to have this , are they forced to pay for it, too?!

Then he says taxpayers will LOVE to pay to raise these millions of kids...really?? Cost $250,000 to raise one kid, multiply that times the number of legal abortions in the previous year and gee, it adds up...they won't be cheap to adopt, somebody has to pay....and health care in the future sure won't cover it, (or anything else)

 

yes, if a woman wants to abort, transplanting the fetus to an artificial womb and than making the child a ward of the state, is the ultimate solution.

 

I don't know and I don't care as long as it isn't me or another taxpayer. I'm not understanding the second part of the question. As long as women aren't forced to have the procedure than why would they be forced to pay anything? I did stipulate that this technology (should it become reality and affordable) should not be forced upon anyone...did I not?

It's funny you ask. Even before you posted I had already been running the numbers. The cost would be STAGGERING.if all of those babies were to become wards of the state. But, I'm not interested in seeing that happen partly because of the cost and partly because kids who grew up in the system don't do well, but mostly because I don't think the government should force a woman into that situation to begin with. But, if a woman chooses to have this procedure voluntarily and can arrange payment and care of the baby than who am I to get in the way?

 

Yah. Except that Roe v. Wade doesn't recognize the fetus as a concerned party @ all - or subsumes any fetal rights to exercise by the pregnant woman. Bear in mind that Roe divides the pregnancy into three phases - 1 when the woman is relatively free to abort @ her election, 2 when the state may begin to regulate the abortion process, & 3 when the state may prohibit abortion, except for the woman's health.

The notion that the Supreme Court will withdraw a Constitutional right that it previously awarded is interesting. I don't understand the thinking on that - Why exactly would the SC reverse itself to the point of outlawing abortion altogether, & allowing prosecution of any woman who aborted, & presumably of any people who assisted in the procedure? Are there any analogous cases where the SC has so reversed itself? I can't think of any, offhand.

 

I can't commend this post enough. Its so rare that anyone is willing to ante up some actual tax dollars for these fetuses. next problem is producing enough of you to make a dent in the political realities.

 

When this procedure finally becomes perfected and generally available to humans, it will initially be available only in instances where there is a medical emergency or a couple has tried unsuccessfully several times to have a child. Eventually, as with plastic surgery, it will also be used as a marker of high status and as a convenience to powerful or important professional women, similar to purchasing a Cadillac or Mercedes Benz. Women will do it to preserve their job status and "figures," and their affluent husbands or boyfriends will willingly help to pay for it to continue sexual access.

It would be a mistake for society to pay for the procedure, especially for an unwanted child. A much less expensive choice is to provide free and readily accessible, long term birth control to anyone that wants it--and then make the costly results of not doing this up to the negligent individuals that make this choice.

An additional reason to avoid general taxpayer funding for the procedure is the almost guaranteed certainty that there will be problems with a number of babies gestated in this way, similar to those that many early preemies now face.

 

Well, like I said, it's a compromise. It doesn't take much moral imagination to see elective abortion as barbaric.

 

It's not taking away the right to life of the countless females that are killed through elective abortion.

I already responded to this Strawman.

 

The OP proposes this as a way to end abortion...and HE hasn't thought out how this expensive procedure and all those kids would be paid for...he says women wouldn't be forced to do this but they wouldn't be allowed an abortion...

He evades most question on this Wonderful New Plan To Take Women's Rights Away.

 

More of your evasion.....you want an unborn fetus to have more rights than women (and anyone else)...and typical of Anti-Choicers don't think much of "life" once it's been born.

LOL! NO, you have NEVER said why it's OK to force women to have a "procedure" but it's not OK to force YOU to have a procedure...why are you special?


How about this Much Cheaper Plan :
More FORCED VASECTOMIES=less unwanted pregnancies

 

No, nothing is a compromise when one party is forced to do something....

I think worshipping fetuses is barbaric....

I think misogyny is barbaric..



As to your "moral imagination" (whatever that is ) ..most morals are imagined...

 

The misogyny coming from you is surprising. YUP, women could use this procedure as their answer to having kids while working.....EXACTLY like men used women to have children while they were working.

Why would successful women have to have a man pay for it? Your view that ALL women are poor is rather silly especially relating to the subject which only rich women could be in.

Yes, working husbands brought home a paycheck so they could have continuing sexual access

You were doing real well with this common sense plan(that Repubs hate)..but then you got all Anti-Choicey with:

Punish people if their BC fails ! ??? Punish those "negligent individuals ( WOMEN) by taking all their money....no misogyny there..

SIMPLE solution: Have all those people who are against women's rights to their own bodies, all those fetus worshippers , all those hilariously named "Pro-"lifers" who only care about the unborn, HAVE THEM PAY FOR IT...

THEY are the ones who don't want the fetus killed so THEY should be the ones to pay for this "LIFE" saving procedure!!!

It will be so much fun to hear them scream bloody murder when they find out their money is going where their mouth was !!~!

They HATE social programs that help actual born living children...will be fun to see how they like spending BILLIONS to bring more of them into the world

 

UHH, ONE person willing to pay , a person who has NO idea of what this would cost, is not enough to pay for it...

How many hundreds of thousands are you willing to put in the pot???