Mostly why I try to draw the line at the decision the mother has to make. "Do I carry to term, or not?" I've tried deciding it on heart beat, brainwave, movement, trying to find the cutoff where ending life just unfathomable/reasonable, and I bounce back and forth so much that I just don't know if there is a decision to be made with the fetus. In the end, I place the stop at the mother. What is in her best interest at the time. Note: I'm not saying Pro Choice should be mandatory. Neither option should be mandatory as I don't condone forcing someone into a life altering course with known consequences. I do however believe no matter how small it is, the mother has a slightly greater weight in the decision than anyone else has a right to. Whether or not that conflict with social standards, or the mans wants is well, a clusterfirk. If there needs to be a default to lead a transition when it's needed, please, look to the mother.
As far as I know pretty damn common. If it wouldn't be common, how would restricting it to necessary cases actually hurt? As for guns, I'm the wrong guy for that argument as I'm the last guy who would want to legalize killing tools. Guns and easy access to abortion make it easy for people to kill people. Should the bad apples ruin it? Yes! I can't ride the train without being controlled because other people ride without a ticket. I have to pay for the police because other people break the law. Restrictions apply to everyone. Personally I hope that we will be able to have artificial wombs to implant unwanted fetuses into sometime soon. Why should one human depend on the whimsy of another person to live or die.
Science is VERY clear when it comes to the difference between an embryo, a fetus, a sperm, and an ova. Not sure why u think the matter is fuzzy. My wife and I are a LOT more connected to our kids, as compared to our dog. We are more connected to our adopted kids than our dog as well. Yes, humans are special. If 14 turtles are killed by terrorists, it will NEVER bother the vast majority of humans as compared to 14 people being murdered by the same terrorists. A mouse cannot be my brother. A hawk cannot be my aunt. A cow cannot be my 2nd cousin. I feel sadness at your nihilistic view of existence.
Going to need hard statistics, and scientific estimates on this. While male abuse against women seems to still be a predominate debate; does it still ring true? More, and more I see adverts for men to open up about spousal abuse. What are the current statistics, are they 'local culture' or regionally located or this wide spread thing. Are there estimates of men that don't talk about abuse, just like there are for males, and women for ****? I'm not saying you said that anything. Just skeptical this may still not ring true, or at the very least not 'true enough' anymore as a wholesome statement. Forgot the name for local culture. (How they were raised in a community) Edit: Rayp is censored. Figures...
He's not being nihilistic, he's trying to understand at what point in a pregnancy the embryo/fetus is considered to be a life.
Though defining "necessary cases" is somewhat ambiguous and I am sure there'd be a lot of disagreement on what that means., I am not opposed to some restrictions as a general case. However, I am opposed to restrictions that don't make any sense, such as the ones that are in place in many states now: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/28/second-trimester-abortion/74734728/ How a mother cannot abort a baby that would be STILLBORN is insane.
I agree. I have never once advocated against all abortion. But the further along it goes, the greater the risk to the woman and the more the fetus looks and behaves like a neonate. Having said that, I still don't know where the line should be. Ultimately, the woman will have to live with the consequences of her decision. So will the partner, but to a lesser extent.
And who, exactly, takes care of these unwanted babies? And let's say the problem with of post-conception contraception with abortion is common, how does this change anything except that they start using artificial wombs as such? (Well, and not killing babies.)
There is already an overload of unwanted children in the adoption/foster care systems. Adoption is also extremely expensive, and seems like it would be even MORE expensive in an artificial womb situation. Incidentally, if you are looking to adopt, go for BLACK MALE baby (while having high tolerance re: drugs/alcohol/cig use). You will get one almost instantly.
Of course laws are always a matter of debate. That doesn't reduce their necessity or authority even if some people oppose them. In this case I'd agree as the child appears to have been entirely unable to live at any rate and with any intervention. Who takes care of the children that love- and careless parents abandon nowadays? Anyway, there are lots of people looking to adopt a newborn. The high numbers of children in foster care come from 1) older children which are stigmatized as problematic and also not as popular for principal reasons, I'd guess, and 2) from children in temporary care while mom and dad are being morons.
As for a comment to this. There was as recent as Jan '14 a womb transplant. There are MANY issues involved in transferring a fetus from a mother who is unwilling to a mother who is. So much so that it's not a thing. However this step forward could lead to fetus transplant advancement as we understand more. However, human testing is taboo. Terrible source, but I'm not particularly incline to try to dive head first into this debate. Just tossing out my thoughts. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ioneering-project-saw-four-children-born.html
It's very difficult to find statistics on adoption (such as how many women are wanting to put up babies for adoption vs how many actually go through with it, etc.). But when my wife and I went through the process, the underlying message was that most people wait a year or two for the "right" baby largely due to preferences - they want a white baby, typically, no history of drug or alcohol abuse, relatively clean patient history, etc. These kind of babies are also in much lower supply typically, creating a scarcity situation. If you relax those assumptions, and, as I said, be ok with a Black Male baby whose mother may have had a history of drug use, you can basically get a baby as soon as the paperwork is cleared.
And people should; adoption should be a dedication to a child and not a shopping trip. So yeah, as you just said, babies are actually in short supply. Maybe I'll adopt a boy some day ... I certainly won't have biological children in this mess of a world.
On the contrary, the impression I got is that there are lot of babies available for adoption... as long as you aren't picky and have 20-30k to spend (we won't even get into all the time required for classes, interviews, doing all kinds of things to your house, affidavits, etc.). And most likely, reducing the number of abortions will increase the glut of less desirable babies (in terms of adoption) - minorities, history of drug use, inherited problems, etc.
Anyway - a lack of proper shelters is hardly an excuse. If there are lots of homeless people, e.g., the correct response is not to kill the homeless but to offer better shelters.
The difference is the homeless are there regardless in that scenario, while whether to carry a fertilized egg to term is... a choice (for lack of a better word): "Do we want to add another unwanted baby to the equation?"
Is it? Killing people is also a choice. There is no natural argument that could take the decision whether we should allow people those choices from us.
