Why don't people who are anti choice invest their resources in growing a fetus outside a woman? It would get rid of abortion! Now, PLEASE, stick to the question at hand...thanks
2006-09-15 07:22:52 · 15 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sway, I think it would stop abortion, because the underlying issue with abortion is that you have to take into account a woman's health. Women are at a far greater risk to carry a child, then they are to have an abortion. Fact, check it if you like. If you remove the woman from having to carry the child, and she could just hand it over to someone else, we would no longer have to protect that woman's health...she could CHOOSE her responsibility to parenting, the same way a man does...it would be equal treatment under the law.
2006-09-15 07:33:38 · update #1
wow, the ignorance ...OK! Test tube babies are not 'babies' grown in test tubes, they are fertilized eggs that are implanted into a woman, to grow. Maybe if you guys had a grasp on fertility, pregnancy, abstinence, and sex, you would have a valid opinion.
2006-09-15 07:36:15 · update #2
no, sway, you still don't get it! If a man wants it, there it is, he can have it! He can grow it himself, and have all of the great responsibilities that come with raising a child! No more him/her, now it is just 'parents'. Equal at last
2006-09-15 08:19:38 · update #3
so, wm, still can't answer a question. Funny how you guys are just itching to call me a baby killer, it's a philosophical question, not a plea for advice! Like I would bring something like that to THIS forum...lmao
2006-09-15 08:21:51 · update #4
That is the obvious solution, because it address the actual conflict.
The conflict is between those people who believe the mother has to right to choose HER OWN involvement in the process, and those people who don't want the fetus/embryo killed because of that choice (and so, want to take that choice away from her).
Heidi's solution solves the debate, because it eliminates the conflict between the two positions. If the woman can always choose whether to be involved in the pregnancy or not, then her rights of choice are preserved. And if the embryo/fetus is always able to grow whether the genetic mother is involved or not, then those who are pro-life don't also have to be anti-choice.
By solving the direct conflict between the rights of the mother to choose HER involvement, and the goal of preserving the unborn, both sides can get what they want. Anything else comes down to somebody making the decision, individual or govt. And that doesn't solve the underlying issue.
2006-09-15 07:25:50 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
How is that going to stop abortions? I have a hangover today so I am a little slower than usual, i need for explanation.
only 7% of abortions are performed for rape, incest and cases where the mother is a risk.
93 % are done out of convenience.
Its time for people to take some responsibilty for their actions. and what the heck about the men, what if they want to keep the child, no-choice there, what if they dont want a kid and they end up stuck with a steep child support payment, no choice there either. I say equal rights.
I still dont see how that would stop abortion, people are still going to be irresponsible and want an easy out, just suck it out right? easy.
2006-09-15 14:28:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK let me know when that happens because i am sure many many woman would go that route instead of making their bodies look like the stay puff marshmallow and what others say is that nice glow yeah right is that the green glow and the mass water retention they get. the streak marks and the awful pain . Wow they have that option I'd do it in a second.Sorry all i couldn't resist because i know it is sad way to write a adverse answer but geezs the things people ask and say and it kinda is funny in a way. test tube nahhhh but hey you never know what is next
2006-09-15 14:26:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why don't anti-smokers invest their resources in growing new lungs for smokers. That would get rid of people dying of lung cancer. Or here's a thought, people could just give up smoking!
Again, why must other people come up with a solution for your problems? If you don't like the consequences of your choices, make different choices.
2006-09-15 14:46:11 · answer #4 · answered by Aegis of Freedom 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The pro-abortion people are the ones who fundamentally believe that everyone should be able to choose to have sex without any consequences. Why don't they put their money in to coming up with that solution? Oh, yeah. It's much easier and cheaper to dehumanize and kill.
2006-09-15 15:06:48 · answer #5 · answered by barb31416 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
how would that get rid of abortion? we already have test tube babys and it has not stopped abortion.
Hillary is all for the state taking control of human reproduction and she is pro murder of babies.
if you want to be man there are options availible.
why do people who are pro choice refuse to admit its all about killing their kids. since you asked the anti choice people to answer it places you by default in the camp of those that consider the death of their own children to be an acceptible solution for their immoral behaivor.
abstaining from sex ( not getting pregannt) would remove the need for abortion.
2006-09-15 14:29:39 · answer #6 · answered by Super Shiraz 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Radicalized Jesusfascists are not interested in babies they only want to enforce their will on society.
I view NeoCon Churchaholics as neither christian or ambassadors of truth.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-15 14:32:58 · answer #7 · answered by 43 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
it is not downgrading humanity to wish for less pain and terror and poverty.
was terri schiavo alive or not? we are too choosy with our championing of life and death, when we can rally around a potato tied to machines at the same time as refusing to count the dead we leave crusading. we are too silly these days...
2006-09-15 14:29:55 · answer #8 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You can always tell a persons position by their rhetoric. "Anti-choice" says it all. I know I didn't answer your question, but I'm due back on planet earth.
2006-09-15 14:59:18 · answer #9 · answered by JB 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
why down grade humanity, that is a liberal way of thinking, and no it would not get rid of abortion, you think skanky little teenagers are going to stop having sex just cause we figured out how to grow a baby in a tank.... i dont think so
2006-09-15 14:26:10 · answer #10 · answered by shut up dummy 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋