|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:29 pm
Lorysa Well, just because a site is biased doesn't mean it's wrong. whee
I don't actually have any other sources with that information, at least not on websites. But only because they had to get that from things like books, newspapers, and reliable magazines. So, it's not completely biased. They get their information from accurate sources. You can see the titles under the quotes and check them out if you want.
And I believe it will change. I mean, to say that colored children will not ever be adopted by white families is like saying that straight children will never be adopted by gay couples. I wouldn't be surprised if a law was passed soon enough so that white couples had every right to adopt black children, as long as they were seen as good enough to be parents.
And I don't agree with an Lifers that say those things. Putting a child up for adoption seems to be much more responcible than letting it rot in your house. And much more humane than killing it.
And yes, the adoption system is not perfect. But no system or organization is. Casinos are basically evil. They want everyone's money, and once-in-a-great-while, people will win. But usually, people lose. There are a few stories to back this statement up, but it would take a bit to type, and it's 11:34 PM here.
But simply because the adoption system isn't perfect, doesn't mean abortion should be chosen above it just because it's more convenient. It's got its bad sides, just like some abortion clinics do. In fact, there was this one story where a woman was getting abortions, but was never really pregnant in the first place (I don't know how they tricked her, it might be fake), but the woman later becamse Pro-Life and shut down her near multi-billion buisiness.
Also, if this post didn't answer any of your questions, it's because it's really late like I already said, and I'll try and edit tomorrow. And I totally missed this post. xp I'll hopefully try to remember to reply to it later, when I have time, and no more homework.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:39 pm
Shard Aerliss And all the women who don't want their spawn wondering around the world? THis is just adoption, and you know how many of feel about adoption... Let's try something here. And all the women who don't want their spawn wondering around the world? THis is just adoption, and you know how many of feel about adoption... Shouldn't basing reproductive rights on DNA allow a man to to make the same choice? Or do women just have more rights then men? If there is an artificial womb. The fetus or embryo can be removed from the mother's womb using a process no more invasive than abortion. Why is she the only one who decides what happens to the DNA? It's not about her body anymore. It's not dependant on her body. Now it's about DNA. If women have that right, shouldn't men? Or do they not get the right because they're just not important and don't care what happens to their DNA? Should a man now be able to force a woman to abort based on what he wants with his DNA? Of course not, who the heck would condone that? Besides abusive men, because that's her body. But if her body is not involved and she wants to keep it, can he then say, "I don't want my DNA in the world," and have that be that? If he can't, then she shouldn't be able to either because it's a double standard. There is no logical grounds for giving a woman supreme rights in this case. What happens when conflicts occur over it? Lengthy court procedings which will last until the child is well past viable? Can sperm donors claim rights over the children that resulted from their sperm? Can rapists claim parental rights? I don't know if either of those cases allows for that. If they do, it's stupid. So if this was available, what right does a woman have to decide the fate of her partner's DNA since her body is no longer a factor? I agree with you on adoption. The system is corrupt. Children equal dollar signs and the more in the system, the more money they get from the government. They make it so hard to adopt that people go to other countries since they can't adopt here. It needs reform and it needs it badly. But we can't ignore a man's right any longer because a woman's body is no longer the deciding factor between which sex has reproductive rights and which sex doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:56 am
lymelady Shard Aerliss And all the women who don't want their spawn wondering around the world? THis is just adoption, and you know how many of feel about adoption... Let's try something here. And all the women who don't want their spawn wondering around the world? THis is just adoption, and you know how many of feel about adoption... Nark...ok you got me there...I'm just as guilty as some male pro-lifers. I guess I was just coming at it from my own life. My bf would agree with me on whether or not I should be able to pass on my DNA. Quote: So if this was available, what right does a woman have to decide the fate of her partner's DNA since her body is no longer a factor? Hmmm, interesting. Nothing is ever easy is it? I'm afraid I have no answers for you. The only way I can see it working is a court battle, which solves nothing. It is now a direct 50/50 split in the case of that foetus. However, if you want to be really utilitarian about this you could say ((and let it be said I would not condone this)) that he could go out and get some other woman pregnant if he desires his DNA be passed on so badly. For a woman it's a bit more difficult; aside from suragucy(sp?) the only way to pass on her DNA is to get pregnant. Whereas a man can just sleep around. Quote: I agree with you on adoption. The system is corrupt. Children equal dollar signs and the more in the system, the more money they get from the government. They make it so hard to adopt that people go to other countries since they can't adopt here. It needs reform and it needs it badly. But we can't ignore a man's right any longer because a woman's body is no longer the deciding factor between which sex has reproductive rights and which sex doesn't. Can I just throw in here? Do you have a right to reproduce? I mean a legal right. Is IVF treatment, viagra for the purpose of reproduction etc...funded by the government? I don't actually know this, but if it's not then there is no legal right to pass on your DNA. If it is, well then we're still in the same legal mess as before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:59 am
Can I just say you are one of the few people that has ever actually managed to shut me up in a debate and proved to me that I was in the wrong ((if only partially razz )). I think I can count the number of people on one hand... a couple of online buddies and my bf. So er... round of applause!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:14 pm
Shard Aerliss Mcphee Shard Aerliss No-one wants population control...no one is saying abort to reduce our population...just that you don't need to add another one to the fold...
I don't know, it's a problem for me.It's not so much "population control." That implies a reduction in numbers. You cannot reduce numbers by not adding more. It's more sort of "population not growing". Yeah, ok, so that sounds like the same thing. But preventing a population growing is different to actively causing it to get smaller ((by killing people)). My post was more sort of aimed at I.Am...sorry, didn't think my post through so well... Well, the only difference is that you don't believe that fetuses are people. But why not? They are fully human, they have their own individual DNA... How are they different from old people or terminally ill people? The only difference is that they rely on the mother's womb for 9 months. When you add artificial wombs to the equasion, they don't even need that, and they become similar to the terminally ill people who require machines to keep them alive; Except that the fetus will eventually grow enough to be able to survive without the machine. And if you say they are not fully developed, well neither are babies. For that matter, neither are five year olds; They don't have working sexual organs yet, so they are not fully developed. But they count as people, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 2:19 pm
Reinna Astarel Lorysa You need to remember that a majority of the subjects of everything I've posted here is based off of the artificial wombs topic. But just the same, the woman is infringing upon the baby's bodily integrity by having it torn apart. So there's sort of fuel for both of us to start a debate there. A never-ending one, at that. That is why I love this topic. Because there are no infinate debates, and the bodily integrety issue just vanishes, for the unborn baby (being sucked apart with no choice) and mother (carrying to term unwillingly). Even for born people, there are exceptions for what could be considered "bodily integrety".. I'm just wondering, but would you still find fault with the fetus's right to bodily integrity if it weren't sucked up by a vacuum? (To the tell the truth, I don't think it's usually...torn up. I think it would be small enough to fit in the vacuum. Not sure though, so don't quote me.) What if it were simply taken out. (Assume no harm was done to the fetus)- but obviously, it would die anyway, because it needs to be attached to the woman's uterine lining, but I don't really see how it would violate the fetus's right to bodily integrity. No harm was done to it, other than the cutting off of it's life support system. However, that life support system is at the expense of another person, and it is the body of another person- unwilling. And could you list some exceptions, please? I can see where you're going, but I'd like to know what exactly you have in mind before I discuss things you haven't exactly stated yet. I have to wonder, did you even read the first post? This thread is using the assumption that there is some sort of artificial womb that the fetus can be transferred to, thus nullifying the argument of body integrity. Which, so far as I can see, all of your arguments have been based off of. And yes, usually the fetus is torn up, either before it is vacuumed out or by the vacuuming out. It would have to be a really, really early term abortion for the vacuum to have no problem on it's own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 3:42 pm
I.Am Reinna Astarel Lorysa You need to remember that a majority of the subjects of everything I've posted here is based off of the artificial wombs topic. But just the same, the woman is infringing upon the baby's bodily integrity by having it torn apart. So there's sort of fuel for both of us to start a debate there. A never-ending one, at that. That is why I love this topic. Because there are no infinate debates, and the bodily integrety issue just vanishes, for the unborn baby (being sucked apart with no choice) and mother (carrying to term unwillingly). Even for born people, there are exceptions for what could be considered "bodily integrety".. I'm just wondering, but would you still find fault with the fetus's right to bodily integrity if it weren't sucked up by a vacuum? (To the tell the truth, I don't think it's usually...torn up. I think it would be small enough to fit in the vacuum. Not sure though, so don't quote me.) What if it were simply taken out. (Assume no harm was done to the fetus)- but obviously, it would die anyway, because it needs to be attached to the woman's uterine lining, but I don't really see how it would violate the fetus's right to bodily integrity. No harm was done to it, other than the cutting off of it's life support system. However, that life support system is at the expense of another person, and it is the body of another person- unwilling. And could you list some exceptions, please? I can see where you're going, but I'd like to know what exactly you have in mind before I discuss things you haven't exactly stated yet. I have to wonder, did you even read the first post? This thread is using the assumption that there is some sort of artificial womb that the fetus can be transferred to, thus nullifying the argument of body integrity. Which, so far as I can see, all of your arguments have been based off of. And yes, usually the fetus is torn up, either before it is vacuumed out or by the vacuuming out. It would have to be a really, really early term abortion for the vacuum to have no problem on it's own. I have read the first post, and I have responded to it, I believe. This post here was a post in reaction to "the woman is infringing upon the baby's bodily integrity by having it torn apart." Not really about the artificial womb, so I'd have to apologize for getting off topic. Do you know how big the vaccuum is? I am aware of the general size of the fetus at around, oh, 8 weeks of life, but I'm not sure about the size of the vaccuum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2005 7:01 pm
Cannula, the vacuum: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v256/dandover/Cannula.jpg
One of someone holding the device, for size comparison:
http://medevoice.co.uk/sheffmed/gifs/Uterine-Cannula-flyer---2.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 9:51 am
Quote: I'm just wondering, but would you still find fault with the fetus's right to bodily integrity if it weren't sucked up by a vacuum? (To the tell the truth, I don't think it's usually...torn up. I think it would be small enough to fit in the vacuum. Not sure though, so don't quote me.) What if it were simply taken out. (Assume no harm was done to the fetus)- but obviously, it would die anyway, because it needs to be attached to the woman's uterine lining, but I don't really see how it would violate the fetus's right to bodily integrity. No harm was done to it, other than the cutting off of it's life support system. However, that life support system is at the expense of another person, and it is the body of another person- unwilling.
Good question. I still probably would, since I consider bodily integrety some one doing anything to some one's body that they don't want them to do. So it applies to the unborn and the mother. For example, grabbing onto someone's hand if they're falling off a cliff against their will, to me, I see as bodily integrety, even though it isn't. But cutting it off and letting it die there, I don't agree with. They can at least try to save it, the way they do with children who were born too early, even though the chances of it surviving is low.Quote: And could you list some exceptions, please? I can see where you're going, but I'd like to know what exactly you have in mind before I discuss things you haven't exactly stated yet. *Was under the impression that 'all human beings' and 'everyone as pertaining to people' were the same things* @_______@ It's not that I don't believe what you're saying (though I do disagree), but I was saying that if you implied 'anyone else's body' and suchlike. Erm. That sounded funny, allow me to rephrase. I understand the point you're getting at, but I'd have to disagree. What I was referring to was that if you say that 'I'm for rights of everyone to do what they want to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't involve anyone else's' would not only pertain to the mother, but also to the fetus, because you implied that a fetus is a human being. Which, obviously, you stated you understood. Quote: My usage of the word 'crazy' was used as an adjective to 'very'. So I was emphasizing it's bias, basically. Quote: I don't know if the site is wrong. I knew only that it was biased. So I asked if perhaps you had another source, because I am less likely to trust statistics from biased sites. I was not demanding one, just asking if you had another. What is wrong with biased sites is that they do often give inaccurate information. I've seen it on both pro-choice and pro-life sites. I do not know if abortionfacts.com does, though I have heard, solely from word of mouth, that it has. So I was hoping you might have had another source. If you don't, that's fine. I'll go look up stuff myself, but I was just wondering. Quote: Good for that. I was providing reasons for why I, personally, disliked what I had seen of abortionfacts.com, and why I was more likely to distrust it. I haven't called you a liar, I haven't been declaring your sources to all be false because they are biased, I haven't been attacking -ANYTHING-. Quote: I fail to see why you become so defensive over a simple questioning of whether you had more sources than the one you provided
Edit: You may as well not bother replying to this, because I'm quitting the guild for a long while. It's pretty inactive, and I have some other guilds that require me to be active and need to lessen my online schedule, so. Was fun debating here with you. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 6:25 pm
whee Same here. *waves good-bye*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:12 pm
Interesting. I know medicare funds IVF, but I don't know if that really counts. Thankyou for the compliment. Sorry it took me forever to reply, I've been...swamped IRL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:38 pm
Shard Aerliss Lorysa You mean like Artificial Wombs? I can't wait. Then, when the mother's life is endangered, they both can live. And when the woman doesn't want the pregnancy, they can just take it out of her and it doesn't have to die. Convenient and humane! It would solve the bodily integrety problem, the possible future Depopulation Problem, and the child would get to live. Especially if the babies got equal rights. The women couldn't kill their unborn children any more than they could kill their already born children, and basicly, all human life might once again (legally) be valued. And all the women who don't want their spawn wondering around the world? THis is just adoption, and you know how many of feel about adoption... I agree, your theory in a nut shell is adoption but ..technologicly advanced. I'd abort because I don't want my children running around the world without me knowing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 9:34 pm
Sort of popping in... but...
This whole idea gives me a very strange image.
There would be like.... unwanted foetus farms, rooms full of undeveloped thoughtless loveless foetus.... encased in jars full of jelly-stuff and tubes everywhere.
And then there would be like... foetus-shoppers. Someone says to their partner, "Hey honey, lets go look at some foetus at Foetus-Mart!" And they go through the rooms full of jars of unwanted unborn children to see which ones they might want when they are "born" in 6 months or so...
Gah!! It's so disgusting to think about. "Humane", you say? Bleah. There are already so many... SO many children needing to be adopted. why on earth do you people insist on caring so much for the ones that haven't even been born yet?
My opinion on this is: Foetus Incubator= Only if mother wants child but is unable to carry it. We do not need to have jars full of unwanted foetus when there are so many others who need our help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 6:50 am
I.Am Well, the only difference is that you don't believe that fetuses are people. But why not? They are fully human, they have their own individual DNA... How are they different from old people or terminally ill people? The only difference is that they rely on the mother's womb for 9 months. When you add artificial wombs to the equasion, they don't even need that, and they become similar to the terminally ill people who require machines to keep them alive; Except that the fetus will eventually grow enough to be able to survive without the machine. There are several differences. A fetus has no memories, has no emtions, has no personality. It has nothing that differentiates a human being from all the other animals on the planet. In the case of an unwanted fetus it is not even loved. Terminally ill people have memories, they have a personality. If they are comatose then it is slightly different: for the record I do not believe in keeping people alive unless there is a good chance that they will wake up. Ever see the show about the girl who fell into a coma when she was about 7 and is still unconcious, 14 years later!! Her mother keeps her alive because a) the little girl "heals the sick" and creates miracles, b) because the mother cannot let go, cannot allow her daughter to have peace because she feels responsible. I actually cried at the plight of this poor girl, stuck somewhere between existence and the final great sleep. Her siblings have been pushed out of the family picture as the girl requires so much attention. Quote: And if you say they are not fully developed, well neither are babies. For that matter, neither are five year olds; They don't have working sexual organs yet, so they are not fully developed. But they count as people, don't they? But they have a mind, a concious thinking mind. I don't care so much about the physical capabilities but the mental. Quite frankly I care more about the life and death of the chicken I ate last night than a fetus. At least that chicken was aware of its surroundings, was aware of its own dying. It was happy and content for it's relatively long life ((relative to a broiler house chicken)). An early stage fetus is aware of nothing. It does not have the mental capabilities ((hell the organ isn't even working yet)) to be aware, to think, to even dream, to be content in it's surroundings. lymelady Interesting. I know medicare funds IVF, but I don't know if that really counts. Thankyou for the compliment. Sorry it took me forever to reply, I've been...swamped IRL. Don't worry about smile Akina-Girl Sort of popping in... but... This whole idea gives me a very strange image. There would be like.... unwanted foetus farms, rooms full of undeveloped thoughtless loveless foetus.... encased in jars full of jelly-stuff and tubes everywhere. And then there would be like... foetus-shoppers. Someone says to their partner, "Hey honey, lets go look at some foetus at Foetus-Mart!" And they go through the rooms full of jars of unwanted unborn children to see which ones they might want when they are "born" in 6 months or so... I don't think I'm hungry anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 8:13 pm
Personally, I'd totally agree with having artificial wombs. As far as I'm concerned that solves all the legal issues surrounding abortion, since, no, you don't own your DNA. Moore v. Regents of California is a fun little case that shows just how much we don't own our DNA and the products of our bodies. The wombs would create an entirely new social problem.... What to do with all of the new infants, particularly since a higher percentage than those currently in the foster system would have genetic problems? Every child deserves somebody who absolutely adores him or her and provides almost constant physical attention and snuggles. The idea of hundreds of thousands of additional infants a year being placed into the already overburdened foster system, and therefore being almost ignored, makes me feel physically ill. And no, adoption agencies do not try to keep white couples from adopting minority babies; the source for that info was from '87, and there was subsequently a bunch of lawsuits over the issue and it is now solidly illegal to practice that kind of discrimination. The reason a higher percentage of black/multiracial children are in the system is purely because of a desire among adopting parents for nonblack newborns with no special needs. I don't think there's any real solution to the social problems that would result from artificial wombs; there simply aren't enough people who want to raise "someone else's" special needs child as it is. Perhaps they could make it illegal to adopt internationally, but that's all I can think of to help mitigate the problem that would inevitably result. We'd be going from one bad situation to another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
