Is abortion safer than childbirth?

[wannaB1L]

abortion = scarred uteruses and dead babies. Abortion stops a heartbeat. I have no respect for women that kill their babies and feel no remorse. I feel bad that the guilty ones bought all the "pro choice" lies.

[brown]

I heard about this story when it aired.  Every single day the doctors had to decide whether or not to abandon the baby as hopeless.  It's not a normal outcome in any sense.

Yet.  But as technology advances...

Total regression:  sperm and egg are viable; masturbation and menstrual cycle are murder.

Sperm is not a developing human life.   An egg is not a developing human life.

[brown]

I disagree.

Didn't want to touch it, but yes, there are worse things than not existing.

I think you can only decide that for your own life.

[brown]

I would also add that the law can and often does define the unlawful killing of a fetus as homicide while still not defining the fetus as a human being.

The new record is 21 weeks:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17304274/site/newsweek/

As science gets better, fetuses start turning into people.

Indeed, 21 weeks is a bit over half a pregnancy; now what are the potentially horrible side effects of being born that premature?  How many babies survive when born that premature?

1. The side effects are not as bad as being dead.

2. This was the first baby and not likely the last.

I disagree.

So, what class of people, now living, do you suggest we exterminate?

[wannaB1L]

I disagree.

Didn't want to touch it, but yes, there are worse things than not existing.

not existing is hell. I think that seeing one sunset, smelling one rose, seeing one cloud drift, hearing wind through trees for a moment, hearing laughter for a second would be a fair price to pay for a terrible end to life. This would be a worse case scenario. At best they end up in love and have children of their own. Everyone deserves a chance, even if there are some failures. That is life, but give people a chance at life.

[wannaB1L]

I disagree.

Didn't want to touch it, but yes, there are worse things than not existing.

sounds like a slippery slope. Kinda Nazi-ish. Who are you to decide?

[brown]

I heard about this story when it aired.  Every single day the doctors had to decide whether or not to abandon the baby as hopeless.  It's not a normal outcome in any sense.

Yet.  But as technology advances...

Total regression:  sperm and egg are viable; masturbation and menstrual cycle are murder.

Sperm is not a developing human life.   An egg is not a developing human life.

Combine the two bolded statements.  One day, I may have children through an asexual process... you know... as technology advances.

Here's the difference:  For a very long time, many, many fetuses have been viable since day one (in the womb).  This is the case today.  I'm not aware of any current asexual human reproduction.

[Miss P]

To what extent, then, do you believe it is our moral duty to devote resources to pushing independent fetal viability earlier in the pregnancy?  Should we work toward asexual reproduction?  Is anything less murder?

[brown]

Sperm is not a developing human life.   An egg is not a developing human life.

A fetus, like a sperm or an egg, is a potential human life.  What's the point of this framing game?

I disagree.

Didn't want to touch it, but yes, there are worse things than not existing.

I think you can only decide that for your own life.

You said that death is worse than these consequences.  If you can say that, I don't see why I can't say that these consequences are in fact worse than death.

You're close to making a point, however.

Well, from a legal standpoint, anything else is a subset of death.

[Lampshade Punk]

as Mr. King once said "can't we all just get along?"