This Asshole Has Fetuses on the Brain.

[Heywood]

You really think that forcing women to undergo that procedure is something they shouldn't protest? Hell, if there were technology that allowed a woman to get an abortion but the embryo/fetus/blastocyst was still viable and able to grow into a human, that's a cool invention. Many women would elect to choose that procedure, methinks. It's the forcing women to undergo that procedure with those restrictions that is the point, woody. It's baffling to me why this is so hard to understand. The woman has control of her own body and can undergo any procedure she chooses.

It used to be that in order to test to see if a woman was pregnant, you took a sample of the woman's urine and injected it into a rabbit. Then you waited a few days, killed the rabbit, dissected it, and examined its ovaries.

If a woman can undergo any procedure she chooses. Should she be allowed to have a rabbit pregnancy test? The only reason to perform a rabbit pregnancy test in our health care system today, is to have an excuse to kill a rabbit.

The pro-abortion movement wants to maintain a woman's "right" to insure a particular person doesn't exist. That is the way I see it given the attitudes expressed in this thread.

[Exian]

A potential person; my balls make those all the time.

[abaris]

By the way, I'd like to know where christians take their anti abortion stance from. The jews never considered a fetus a human being until it was born.

An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person (Heb.nefesh, lit. “soul”) until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during parturition (childbirth). In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” These facts form the basis for the Jewish legal view on abortion.

Also, the bible doesn't mentions abortion, only accidents.

Exodus 21:22‑23: “When men fight and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other misfortune ensues, the one responsible shall be fined as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on judges’ reckoning. But if other misfortune ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.”

[Dystopia]

You really think that forcing women to undergo that procedure is something they shouldn't protest? Hell, if there were technology that allowed a woman to get an abortion but the embryo/fetus/blastocyst was still viable and able to grow into a human, that's a cool invention. Many women would elect to choose that procedure, methinks. It's the forcing women to undergo that procedure with those restrictions that is the point, woody. It's baffling to me why this is so hard to understand. The woman has control of her own body and can undergo any procedure she chooses.

It used to be that in order to test to see if a woman was pregnant, you took a sample of the woman's urine and injected it into a rabbit. Then you waited a few days, killed the rabbit, dissected it, and examined its ovaries.

If a woman can undergo any procedure she chooses. Should she be allowed to have a rabbit pregnancy test? The only reason to perform a rabbit pregnancy test in our health care system today, is to have an excuse to kill a rabbit.

The pro-abortion movement wants to maintain a woman's "right" to insure a particular person doesn't exist. That is the way I see it given the attitudes expressed in this thread.

Your analogy makes zero sense. Could you reformulate your position and explain better why it should be allowed for surgical procedures to take place without consent? Or do you have a better idea to extract a fetus?

[Chas]

1 - Pro-abortion would be supporting abortion as the rational decision a woman should make regarding her own body, contrary to pro-choice activists that simply argue women should have the right to voluntarily and without coercion terminate their own pregnancies if they wish, regardless of everyone's moral or ethical opinion on it since it shouldn't be imposed - Notice the difference? Then please correct your stance Heywood
2 - Even if the fetus was a person, I've already justified why forcing a surgery to remove a fetus as someone violates basic human dignity, but obviously you refuse to accept that - If this technology is developed, the status quo won't change, and your will to control other people's bodies is not important.

[This was meant to answer Heywood but I quoted the last paragraph because even if a fetus was considered a "child" that's irrelevant given the circumstances]

Nobody is saying a woman should be forced to have an abortion. I have no idea where you are getting that. The argument is when an abortion can be achieved which also preserves the life of the child just as easily and safely as an abortion which terminates the life of the child, then the only reason to continue to allow women the right to have an abortion which terminates the life of the child is to give women the right to decide a particular person should not exist.

Child?

[Minimalist]

How is it that women are somehow oppressed if the child is removed and lives but not oppressed if the child is removed and dies?

You deftly tried to avoid the question, Woodie....with about as much skill as you do anything else.

The point was that republicunt fuckheads like you will scream bloody murder over having to support those fetuses - and the real costs begin when they get out of the incubator..just like now... and have to be fed and educated. You come from a political party of fuckwits which wants to deny them school lunches, food stamps and head start programs for starters. If you have convinced yourself that any of that would change for a test-tube baby you have just succeeded in kidding yourself which, I imagine, is daily occurrence for you.

[rexbeccarox]

You really think that forcing women to undergo that procedure is something they shouldn't protest? Hell, if there were technology that allowed a woman to get an abortion but the embryo/fetus/blastocyst was still viable and able to grow into a human, that's a cool invention. Many women would elect to choose that procedure, methinks. It's the forcing women to undergo that procedure with those restrictions that is the point, woody. It's baffling to me why this is so hard to understand. The woman has control of her own body and can undergo any procedure she chooses.

It used to be that in order to test to see if a woman was pregnant, you took a sample of the woman's urine and injected it into a rabbit. Then you waited a few days, killed the rabbit, dissected it, and examined its ovaries.

If a woman can undergo any procedure she chooses. Should she be allowed to have a rabbit pregnancy test? The only reason to perform a rabbit pregnancy test in our health care system today, is to have an excuse to kill a rabbit.

The pro-abortion movement wants to maintain a woman's "right" to insure a particular person doesn't exist. That is the way I see it given the attitudes expressed in this thread.

What in the absolute fuck are you going on about?

[Brakeman]

A healthy woman has about 500,000 eggs in her ovaries. Men make billions of sperm. So just the women and men on this board could swarm all of the resources for human life on this planet given the technology we already have.
Why? Why? Why? Why would we want to do such a thing if it weren't at the behest of an ignorant middle eastern goat herder's god?

Maybe a woman doesn't want to be a mom. Even if you take the child and raise it elsewhere, she is still a mom and society has ingrained expectations of women that are moms. Just perhaps, these women don't want to deal with the angst of these expectations.

Men are expected to be "good fathers" and financially support their children. If the government took my sperm from me and made babies with it, those babies would be my children. Even if I wasn't "required" to financially support them, I would be robbed of the self esteem and ability to brag that I support my children.

Most modern christians are of the belief that babies' souls go to heaven if they die so young. Why are the christians against abortions when the fetus gets a free ticket to heaven as opposed to the very low rate of entry into heaven if the fetus is brought to adulthood?

RTL's do not really care about the fetus at all, they just want to bully the vulnerable young girls.

[Natachan]

I am disgusted by the mere idea.

Part of the reasoning behind abortion is that a woman has not only the right bit the obligation to determine when she has a child. Even if she gives up that child for adoption it is still her child in a very fundamental way. When a pregnancy is terminated before the cluster of cells has developed so much as a single nerve cell, she has made an ethical choice. It's not a fun choice, not a pleasant choice, but it is the best and most ethical choice open to her.

Even if the technology of womb less carrying was developed I would object to this plan. This is unethical. And adding to the above I am horrified at the idea of growing children in that way.

[Exian]

What about the prospect of using this technology instead of your body, with the intent to keep the child? How would you feel about this becoming a popular option, marketed as low risk child birth with no bodily changes?