• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

Deacaholic said:
I don't disagree with you, it may not move the needle much. But suddenly, for those who were going to have an abortion anyway, a baby COULD become a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...

If financial interests were really at the top of their priority list, then surely they would carry the baby to term and sell it for adoption on the black market. People pay tens of thousands of dollars for babies.
 
Fortunately, I think, as with selling fetal tissue, selling children out of the uterus for money is illegal. It is also less socially acceptable that selling body parts of a baby after it has dies and been removed from the mother.
I never said it was their top priority. If they need to get rid of a baby that is dead, why not make a small profit off of it?
If I think purely like a businessman running a company, I would.
 
That's why I said the black market, just to be clear. So if they are going to look to profit from an unwanted pregnancy, then it would make more financial sense to carry the fetus to term in order to sell the baby on the black market instead of trying to get a national organization (with a LOT to lose) to give them some money to have the fetus aborted in order for the organs to be donated to science.

My point is that there is really no rational reason, that I see at least, where it makes sense for them to abort the pregnancy in some wily get rich quick scheme. More money in putting the baby up for adoption on the black market and I'm pretty sure women won't try to get pregnant just to abort the baby later for a few shekels.
 
Thanks for the response, Dv7,
I would point back to the socially acceptable part in response to your first paragraph. at this point, I can see many people in America finding it socially acceptable to sell aborted children's body parts, (whereas selling "live" children would not be ). I Wouldn't expect planned parenthood to sell on the black market, as with the scrutiny they are under, I agree that they have much to lose. on the other hand, though, if you can make a few bucks on the side as and do it in a way that does not arise suspicion, why not?
I agree that mothers wouldn't abort a baby to make a few shekels, but if one were going to do it anyway and the concerns that many conservatives have aren't a bother to you, why not profit? Especially if it is determined that Planned parenthood already is already profiting from your abort a child (not proven, I know).

To draw my comments to a conclusion (not a lawyer or philosopher), if a mother is able to kill her child in the uterus, why should she not be able to sell the body parts?

If we go back to the original topic of the discussion, wrangor expressed outrage at the selling of body parts, possibly for profit, of unborn babies. He draws a line in the sand, as do I, that when a sperm and egg unite, the baby is formed. Any intentional destruction of this organism would be considered killing and to sell the body parts of a murdered child, even for science, is even more outrageous. For many people in society, the line is drawn at a different point. The age of viability, I believe, is currently around 22 weeks, which is why late term abortions are so controversial. What if laws change and it is OK to abort a child up to 25 weeks?Where should the line the drawn? And does it move based on science? What is the age of viability drops to 10 weeks because of technology? Just food for thought, I don't have all the answers.
 
So we have abortion and we have adoption, should abortion opponents develop a 3rd option that doesn't require an unwilling mother to carry to term?
 
I'll agree that until we can get everyone 100% on board the safe sex train, that we should continue to discuss alternative policies for what to do when reality actually gets in the way.
 
It's fetal tissue and organs. A fetus is present. You believe that fetus is a full human. Other people do not.
 
Wrangor said:
If no child was present then whose organs are being donated? That was comparison. He used a comparison of two separate beings. A better comparison if you are going to make the argument is that donated abortion organs are like someone donating a kidney for research. See that would make sense. But when you compare this practice to a person donating his brother's organs to science in the case of a natural death then you have just defeated your own rhetoric. This is because you established two separate humans as the comparison.

He made an absolutely silly argument for his case. That was my surprise. He defeated himself. Then you went a doubled down on a bad argument. Congrats. Moron. :)
Click to expand...
There is a dichtonomy here that you're failing to acknowledge. We don't believe a fetus is a person, and you do. You can't build your argument on a understanding that isn't shared.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
There is a dichtonomy here that you're failing to acknowledge. We don't believe a fetus is a person, and you do. You can't build your argument on a understanding that isn't shared.
Click to expand...

I don't believe someone in a coma on life support is a person. When can I start pulling plugs without their consent?
 
I gave them that. I thought it would be important to cede that to them - let's call a fetus/zygote/fertilized egg a baby/person/full human. Fine.

It is a person.

oh, and it is an innocent one.


YOU PEOPLE CONDONE KILLING INNOCENT PERSONS, INCLUDING CUTE LITTLE BABIES, ALL THE TIME. YOU LOOK THE OTHER WAY AND RATIONALIZE IT JUST LIKE WE DO VIS A VIS ABORTION.
 
Hi, Everybody! Just checking in. See Wrangor's still an asshat. Saw this and thought it may add to the discussion:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/07/22/bart-starr-improving-after-stem-cell-treatment/30540473/

"She said Bart Starr is returning to the San Diego area for more stem cells in September, this time to receive stem cells that are believed to help the brain. Similarly, Brodie and Howe received two separate injections of two different types of stem cells — mesenchymal stem cells derived from the bone marrow of an adult donor, and neural stem cells, derived from a single donated fetus. Those stem cells were manufactured by Stemedica, a company in San Diego, which didn’t return a message seeking comment about Starr."
 
Wrangor, I think the major disconnect here is that you are confidently talking about abortion as if it's murder and most (all?) of the people who are responding to you do not view abortion as murder.
 
Serious question for Wrangor and others. Apologies if it has been asked and answered.

Where on the spectrum from A. birth control/Plan B to Z. Abortions approaching viability, do you draw the line between "I think this is morally wrong but am more or less ok with it being legal" and "I think this is so morally wrong that the state must intervene to prevent it"?
 
Wrangor seems to have said that birth control is fine, plan B might not be fine (since life begins at conception), and it's definitely not okay once the life is beyond a few cells.

I think abortion is fine until viability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top