This Asshole Has Fetuses on the Brain.

[h4ym4n]

Couldn't god have intelligently designed a woman to get pregnant when she wants to?

At some point it, god, had to invent and allow abortions.

It chose yes on abortions and no on humans breathing underwater.

[Heywood]

So, where are you getting this "pro-abortion people are against abortion techniques that preserve the fetus' life"?

From the title and first few posts in this thread.

[FatAndFaithless]

So..you honestly can't see why people would be against that?

Besides us being "evil" and wanting to deprive babies from existing, of course.

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.

[Dystopia]

Just a small detail - Any medical procedure taken without the patient's consent, and specially against explicit lack of consent, is considered physical aggression and punishable by law (I hope so America) - Unless the patient is incapable, at the moment, of giving consent AND not taking any measures can result in his death. So basically the guy is advocating to infringe upon human rights, it's the same as forcing someone to donate a kidney when he/she clearly doesn't want, that's not saving anyone, that's fascism

[Heywood]

Just a small detail - Any medical procedure taken without the patient's consent, and specially against explicit lack of consent, is considered physical aggression and punishable by law (I hope so America) - Unless the patient is incapable, at the moment, of giving consent AND not taking any measures can result in his death. So basically the guy is advocating to infringe upon human rights, it's the same as forcing someone to donate a kidney when he/she clearly doesn't want, that's not saving anyone, that's fascism

Abortions in which the child lives would be elective...just like abortion now are elective. Assuming the technology comes into existence which allows pregnancies to be safely terminated while maintaining the life of the child, the only reason to continue to allow abortions in which the child dies is to give the mother the right to decide a particular person should not exist. This is evil in my opinion.

[Dystopia]

Just a small detail - Any medical procedure taken without the patient's consent, and specially against explicit lack of consent, is considered physical aggression and punishable by law (I hope so America) - Unless the patient is incapable, at the moment, of giving consent AND not taking any measures can result in his death. So basically the guy is advocating to infringe upon human rights, it's the same as forcing someone to donate a kidney when he/she clearly doesn't want, that's not saving anyone, that's fascism

Abortions in which the child lives would be elective...just like abortion now are elective. Assuming the technology comes into existence which allows pregnancies to be safely terminated while maintaining the life of the child, the only reason to continue to allow abortions in which the child dies is to give the mother the right to decide a particular person should not exist. This is evil in my opinion.

Even if the fetus was a life, you don't have a duty to sacrifice and possibly endanger your physical integrity (no surgery is 100% safe) to save it - The law [should] only require people to save others from danger if their most fundamental human rights are not violated - Bodily autonomy is one of those in case you don't know - Just like I'm not forced to save someone that has a gun pointed to his head if that endangers my own life. It doesn't mean I can't, but I'm not obligated to it.

[Chas]

"The pro abortion movement is evil". Your idiocy and propagandistic wingnuttiness is showing again woodster.

The objective of having an abortion is not "to kill a person", it's to end a pregnancy. The bodily autonomy of the woman takes full precedent.

If the objective of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, what then is the reason to be opposed to ending pregnancies in a manner which preserves the life to the child?

I am saying that the reason the pro-abortion movement seems to be against this method of ending pregnancies is because it is part of their goal to not only end an unwanted pregnancy, but also to stop a person they do not want to exist....from existing.

What does that say about the pro-abortion movement?

How many cells constitute a 'child'? One? Two? Four? ...

[Dystopia]

If the objective of an abortion is to end a pregnancy, what then is the reason to be opposed to ending pregnancies in a manner which preserves the life to the child?

I am saying that the reason the pro-abortion movement seems to be against this method of ending pregnancies is because it is part of their goal to not only end an unwanted pregnancy, but also to stop a person they do not want to exist....from existing.

What does that say about the pro-abortion movement?

How many cells constitute a 'child'? One? Two? Four? ...

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 on 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]

[Heywood]

How many cells constitute a 'child'? One? Two? Four? ...

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.

[Little lunch]

Fetal Rescue Centre.
Future reality tv show?