Technology as a solution to the abortion debate?

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)



















NO, the ultimate solution to a woman wanting to abort is HERE NOW, she has an abortion.

 

The "gestating human" , if you mean the fetus, has no rights and YOU don't have the power to bestow any


You: "" If a woman has willingly engaged in activity that has led to her pregnancy, she bears a responsibility towards that life quite distinct from what third parties do or do not do.""

More rubbish....Just another Anti-Choice misogynistic attitude that women must be punish for having sex freely and for fun ....which they do continually all over the world without your permission


YES a woman is being very responsible when she aborts a fetus that she can't afford or just doesn't want...

 

SHOW proof that Pro-Choicers claim the fetus isn't alive....even if they did years ago this is now and I haven't seen anyone claim the fetus isn't alive..



Here is another question for you to duck:


Why do you think fetuses should have all the rights of born person but NONE of the restrictions that accompany those rights?

EVERYONE else has those restrictions but you want an entity to have no restrictions.

 

OOOH, total control of women...the Anti-Choicers dream come true...(and trust me, it IS nothing but a dream)

 

Elective abortion is perfectly fine. What you propose is barbaric

 

Actually, the complaint isn't about the kids themselves, it's about the use of those kids, by their parents to bilk yet more welfare payments to cover their costs. I know, nuance is often lost on liberals. I'd also suggest that the term "unwanted" is more a euphemism for irresponsible. Think we can keep the language straight now?

 

Ooo Ooo!!! I got it. The perfect "compromise" for our friend...

Pass laws that require, beginning at birth, that all males receive monthly injections of female hormones. These injections are to continue across the male's entire lifespan. This will, of course, inhibit the development of the male sex drive and ability to procreate. At age 12 all males are to undergo forced vasectomies. Failure to comply with these mandates would, of course, be considered a serious crime.

If a couple wants to have a baby they'd need to apply for a permit and demonstrate both personal and financial stability. A successful application would allow for a temporary reversal of the vasectomy which would be reapplied after conception.

This, of course, would eliminate all unwanted pregnancies, all unplanned pregnancies, as well as having the benefit of eliminating much of the violent behavior in our society.

 

Yeah. People have babies so they can get that extra $38 a month. Geez.

 

So YOU think it's fair to punish those "precious lives" because of why their parents had them....how barbaric.


Why would anyone think an "unwanted" child is " irresponsible"....??

Think you can get English straight now?

 

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). For 2015, the maximum EITC amount available is $3,359 for taxpayers filing jointly with one child; $5,548 for two children; $6,242 for three or more children (up from $6,143 in 2014

Try again. Cheers.

 

Are those the people on Welfare?

 

moral imagination is a pretty phrase - which didn't stop & hardly impeded the Pope divvying up the New World, for instance, between Spain & Portugal. Nor the Europeans generally (with a few honorable exceptions) treating the Native Peoples here as mere placeholders, conveniently marking out the desirable real estate by living there, showing the newcomers what was edible, when & how to plant, introducing them to farming, new plants & animals, fishing, etc.

Is elective abortion ... barbaric? Well, it's a step up from infant exposure, to be sure. & it beats the horrors of Gin Alley in London, the teeming ghettoes of the Third World, & so on. In the US in 2017, barbaric tends to mean I don't want to see that. So long as it happens out of view, & out of camera-shot, apparently it's perfectly acceptable. The problem being that the same tech that enables smartphones & such means that hardly anything happens off-camera anymore.

If abortion is the issue, the economics of World population are an important factor. Yah, the US & the West in general on average enjoy a much better quality of life than most of the World. That's @ the expense of consuming more of the World's resources - ores, fuel, energy, water - than the rest of the World, on a per-capita basis. So bringing up the rest of the World to consume @ the West's pace isn't doable - without a lot of cheap energy & some way to distribute the fruits of that energy more equitably. Otherwise, you just get more & more sophisticated warfare, in one form or another.

If the West goes to artificial uteri - it means that the biotech has advanced explosively. For the immediate future, such a development would be considerably more expensive than nature - although as I noted, transplants or implants of an embryo into an existing womb (not the egg donor's) has already been done, & is known to work. From an economic POV, that's the way to go - although payment & care to the woman bearing the child remains problematic.

Yah, the West can leverage its technical & biological expertise to get around the natural method of birth. We have a long way to go before we understand everything that happens in utero, though. & meanwhile the surrogate alternative is already here. I'd bet on surrogates - we'll need the artificial alternative @ some point - deep space exploration? terraforming & colonization? But from the sound of it, it will take massive computational resources & a deep understanding of natural gestation & childbirth before we can hope to reliably & safely duplicate the process in vitro. Plus require lots of environmental control, energy, medical monitoring (maybe an autodoc?), clean water, medical supplies & support, maybe trained doctors & nurses & techs & etc. In other words, massive amounts of money & resources to sustain the practice of artificial uteri, let alone the costs & resources required to develop the equipment & protocols.

Which puts us right back @ the starting point - soon an artificial uterus will be possible. Reducing that to practice will be a long & costly process, with considerable risk to the early users. A kind of early infant exposure, if you will. Aye, and there's the rub.

 

Seriously?

 

Ya, as serious as post#59 that you are avoiding,too.

 

Guess you don't understand what the earned income child credit is. Thanks for showing the void of liberal thinking today....

 

Guess you're still avoiding post # 59 by going way off topic....

 

So you mean this post? I thought this was simply hyperbole, and wasn't actually designed to get a response because of the object stupidity of the post. Oh well,

There is no condition which demands that a financially unable parent cannot put their "unwanted" offspring up for adoption, nor is there any reason that an "unwanted" child's parents/parent shouldn't work to improve their own financial circumstances based on the addition of said "wanted?" child. Your assertion that not providing social assistance seems remarkably pejorative. Tell us, why must society always insert itself into personal poor choices? Should it? If we don't, why is that barbaric as you've ascribed it? Wouldn't it be barbaric of said irresponsible parents who were either too lazy, or drunk, or high to preclude themselves from being put into the awkward position of having said "unwanted" child in the first place? Do they ever suffer for their complicity? So, no one is asserting that the child is "irresponsible" as you've incorrectly attributed, it's unfortunate for sure given the demonstrable "irresponsibility" of the parents themselves. I know, attributing actual personal responsibility never seems to be a concern for your camp.

So, now that we've responded to your hyperbole, can we now get back to just how ignorant of the social services network you seem to be?

 

Yeah, I mean I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but it's just not a viable solution to END abortion. But, honestly, that doesn't matter to me. Even if it were affordable and there were enough prospective adoptive parents to match the supply I would STILL not force that on a woman. No government should mandate what someone does with their body...period. Neither you nor I or anybody has to rationalize that. It's that simple and that black & white for me.

And for those that are anti-choice...understand that I don't take that position with callused apathy. I think this technology is pretty cool. I hope one day it does put a dent in the number of abortions by matching more adoptive parents with babies. Or even if helps save the life of a fetus that someone desperately wants then great. I'm all for it. Just don't force or guilt a woman into undergoing the procedure.

 

I do not have a political party. My position comes from my belief in personal freedom. The left has its own brand of infringing on personal freedom. Currently, your party thinks that free speech only applies to them. They have no problem forcing me to contribute to record profits for the pharmaceutical companies, (Prescription drugs in their prescribed doses are twice as deadly as firearms) Living in Los Angeles, I see the effect of liberal policies firsthand. I am sure you are aware of California's infringement on second amendment rights. A girl does not have a choice not to be raped since your party has stripped her of her right to carry.

I get to watch liberal celebrities push the same agenda that chased their own industry out of Hollywood. The same way I call out those on the right for falsely claiming they care about human life, I will challenge those on the left claiming they care about personal freedom. It looks as though you may be doing the dance of the sanctimonious as well.

You can get ugly about it if you want, but if your position is that your parties ideology on freedom is superior to the right's, you are just another pot calling the kettle black.

 

No, it addressed the stupidity of those who think social services are only for adults and don't realize that they support those "precious lives" AFTER they're born.....or they really don't care about those "precious lives" after they're born and don't want to admit it.

There is no law that says they have to.

.


Having a kid sets them back....why do you want them set back? So you can whine some more?

Because civilized countries take care of their children and their poor, barbaric people don't.

I am never sure why Anti-Choicers want, really want what they consider "lazy, drunk, irresponsible people to have children...again, why do they hate children so much when before they were born they were "precious lives".

"Personal responsibility " is not having a kid you can't afford or don't want.

I'm not the one saying that social services are ONLY for adults....YOU are.

You are blatantly denying that social services help those "PRECIOUS LIVES after they're born.

You are avoiding the fact that you have NO feeling for those "precious lives" AFTER they're born.

 

So, I removed most of the blah blah non responsive stuff, since, frankly you didn't actually respond. So, I left your accusations. Point 1: Social services are given to the adults, no? So, unless there is a legal requirement for those social services to actually become the property/assets of said child, your assertion is baseless.

2. In what way? What legal requirement is there to use said social service to "help" at all? Does EBT remove the ability of parents to spend for themselves? Does the EICC reward require parents to spend the money on better housing, in better districts, or better schooling?

3. You have an opinion. Wrong, but it's yours. I'm sure you'll nurture it no matter what other responses may try to influence it.

In your mind, unless folks continue to be willing to supply services without stipulations, you whine about how "unfair" or "barbaric" etc those opinions or policies may be. Honestly, The issue is for you to resolve.

 

I'm wrong because YOU think so?


...and I se you left off those INCONVENIENT quotes.....again.....

No, nothing will change my mind about two-faced Anti-Choicers who think the only "precious lives" are fetuses so they can promote their 'control/punish women agenda...

 

First off, never gonna happen. Second off, even if it did, it would be the woman's choice of whether to do this or have an abortion. Third off, I don't want my taxes going to this, so if it ever became reality, the person wanting to utilize such technology should pay for it. However, abortion should never, ever be illegal.

 

EARNED INCOME CREDIT. Means the people are working. You try again.

 

There's your better solution. And available today.