|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:39 pm
Update: (I put it at the top so you wouldn't have to scroll down to the bottom)
Alright, I was wondering: Why can't a woman just wait a few months if she knows that the baby migth endanger her life, but instead of carrying it to full term, go to he hospital and have it taken out. They might be able to save the child, like with premature babies. It takes a lot of work, but they can save the babies life sometimes. It's worth a try, right? It's better than tearing it apart, leaving no chance for it to live at all.
____________________________________________________________________
(Original Post, "Abortion to save the Mom's life--Can we save the baby, too?")
I know you all probably support it. I do, too, but I hate the fact that parents must kill their children just for the mother to survive, instead of there being some way both of them can live on. I don't believe it's right to kill the baby for the mother's life. I'm not saying that I think it's significantly good or bad that they choose to do so, because I think it's equally wrong that women should have to die to save their children. I mean, they both should have a right to live. So, insted of picking and choosing, here's my idea:
Isn't it possible for the mother to have someone else carry him for her? Like a surrogate mother? They could take the baby out of the endangered Mom and put it into a temporary one. It would save the child and the woman's life, wouldn't it? At least until artificial wombs are created and safe for use. And if people can carry twins naturally, couldn't the surrogate mother carry two or more, as well, for the people who can't? Honestly, I don't know much about surrogate mothers, so please fill me in on this if I'm getting it all wrong.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 1:06 pm
You know, that has me thinking. Instead of submittign funding to stem cell research (because the stem cell process they are researching has so far proved to have little ot no effect) We should submit more funding to the idea of artificial wombs. Imean, if we can realy have a child grow in an artificial womb, there would no longer be a need for an abortion at all. But then you woudl have advocate against it, claiming its unnatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:33 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle You know, that has me thinking. Instead of submittign funding to stem cell research (because the stem cell process they are researching has so far proved to have little ot no effect) We should submit more funding to the idea of artificial wombs. Imean, if we can realy have a child grow in an artificial womb, there would no longer be a need for an abortion at all. But then you woudl have advocate against it, claiming its unnatural.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:51 pm
They can't take the fetus from the uterus and then reattach it to another person's uterus. It's not quite as simple as that. Not only that but the amount of women who would be willing to be surrogate mothers for women with whom they have no affiliate is minimal as well as a whole slew of other problems.
I agree with you that I wish that there was a way to save them both, however if the fetus had a high possibility of killing the mother I don't believe it's fair to force her to die in its stead. Nor would it be fair to any family or friends that she may have.
The point of being pro-life isn't to choose one human life over the other, it's to protect all human life. By placing one life over the life of another it's no different than what the choicers are doing. You're just placing the opposite life, over the other life. However if there was another way in which we could save them both I would be on that bandwagon faster than you could say "sloppy joe".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 3:41 pm
Yeah, I guess you're right. I guess we'll just have to wait for those artificial wombs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:04 pm
wow how interesting..those artificial wombs do sound nice..but as usual it would stir up lots of controversy as stated above.. stressed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:17 am
Lorysa Yeah, I guess you're right. I guess we'll just have to wait for those artificial wombs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:29 pm
Beware the Jabberwock Lorysa Yeah, I guess you're right. I guess we'll just have to wait for those artificial wombs.
And the best part is, they couldn't bring up reproductive rights as an excuse to kill, tthat would mean that they couldn't kill the baby anymore than they could kill their older children, so... horrah! Equal rights for pre-born people 100%!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:34 pm
Ironically, the Pro-Choicers have already had a thread on artificial wombs... And most of them said that abortion should still be available. They claim that, as part of their "reproductive rights", they should be able to choose if their genes live on or not. stare
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:01 pm
I.Am Ironically, the Pro-Choicers have already had a thread on artificial wombs... And most of them said that abortion should still be available. They claim that, as part of their "reproductive rights", they should be able to choose if their genes live on or not. stare
Those nouns also talked about how if women weren't able to control their bodies' reproductive system, that they would be reduced to "Baby factories." In the same way that since men can't control ejaculation, they are all worthless sperm dispensers. And that's all they'll ever be.
No. That's not going to happen. You can't kill a born child legally, so once (if we win) unborn babies have equal rights as everyone else, artificial wombs would be the only choice besides giving birth naturally, and so it would be considered just as illogical (an illegal) to kill an unborn child as a born one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 4:39 pm
Thats not fare. A guy can trian himself to controle his ejaculations. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Thats not fare. A guy can trian himself to controle his ejaculations. ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:22 pm
Well, yeah, if he is already in the middle of doign it, its best to let him finish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 5:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:00 pm
 You guys scare me sometimes. I don't support abortion to save a woman's life because I have yet to find a case where abortion directly is necessary. If abortion happens as a result of a lifesaving procedure, that's a sad but unnavoidable risk. But you don't go to an abortion clinic to save your life. You go to a hospital because they do a medical procedure. Maybe it'll kill the unborn child, but I have NEVER heard of someone going to an abortion clinic because her life was in danger. I've heard of women who felt they might be in danger, but not women whose doctors felt the need to get into an OR and perform a procedure or she would most likely die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
