It's a fun world we live in, when those three things aren't simply thought of with the same distaste. But, no. I was saying that the debate over abortion today, opens up a doorway to a much bigger and much more difficult debate less than 15 years away, and no one seems to understand the consequences of that. Roe v. Wade didn't give women the right to abortion or to choose what to do with they're bodies. It gave women the right to medical privacy. Legally it's a precursor to a very big fight.
i have to disagree that: abortion = murder. who exactly are we murdering? a potential super-hero? to be more exact a fetus that has a potential do become something in the future? last i checked, a fetus cannot survive without mother. i wonder what it would feel like for a mother to carry a baby of her rapist.. without choice, who is to say that she will not kill herself? i mean there's a possibility of that happening. restricting someone of a choice because of some "possible" future event is pretty silly.
The use of genetic engineering to modify a fetus - which can be modified even before fertilization, will be a debate within the next 15 years. As it stands now men do not have a say in the birth of a child. Men, it seems in general, are seen as "inferior parents" incapable of the same connection to children that women have, incapable of producing life the same way women can, and thus not regarded in the debate about childbirth and abortion. Having a legal precedent which says, "a women's body is her own" and that includes unborn children at any stage of development (until T3 for most if not all states), opens up a doorway to excluding men from the possibilities of saying "Do not pay someone to make the child in you, which I am apart of creating, some X attribute (tall, dark, hung, eye color, "intelligence"). Having that precedent is a very scary thing for the future. In addition, DNA testing is the only court worthy determinant of parenthood to a child. What happens when you can pick the hair off of someone guys head and modify the baby in you to express the gene markers necessary to identify that man (unrelated to the baby) as the father? I don't like the idea of abortion, but I'm certainly not going to assume my distaste = rightness in position, so I won't say people "shouldn't" do it. In my opinion, in a perfect world abortion wouldn't be necessary at all. I know the world isn't perfect, far from - but when true progress occurs it comes about through aiming for an ideal above relative pragmatism - otherwise, if all we ever do as a society is simply acknowledge and aim for what is "realistic" we will invariable fall short of the mark and find ourselves in an ever devolving cycle of "good enough." Apologies for the digression, but it's in my view that when looking at what we are - a species of uniquely acquired perceptions (whether those amount to anything special is debatable) that if looking at the goodness in us we find the need to abort that which is the ultimate reason for our biological existence, seems utterly brutal to me. The fact that I "don't get it" simply because I have a penis, is a non sequitur.
There may be a trend in that genetics have a role in helping couples who cannot procreate (3 parent children, IVF, frozen eggs, etc) but to deny women the right to abortion because we fear that women will want (maybe, eventually) pick their offspring's eye color is absurd and insulting. Male DNA plays a massive role in conception. While I'm very sorry you feel that way, but my autonomy as a woman is more important than your biological need to procreate. No one is pro abortion, pro-choicers are pro-education. Pro lifers and the church spend a lot of time spreading misinformation when all ot does is cycle back into society and create more unfit parents and strain on the system.
Never said deny anyone the choice, what I said was that the current legal precedent and popular arguments, namely "my body my choice", sets the stage for a massive slippery slope in light of what future technology will allow people to do to their unborn children.
No it doesn't. You wouldn't say something like that if we were talking about male bodies. Very few people will ever be able to afford gene therapies and they aren't going to use them irresponsibly.
this is so arrogant... Just because only woman carry the child, doesnt mmean men don't get rights. It takes a man to impregnate aa woman. It takes half the genes of the father. The father has half the rights. Sorry you have to be the pregnant one. Poor you. That doesn't give you tje right toto infringe on the father's rights or the baby's rights A fetus isn't a medical condition or a parasite fyi -yuri
It's not a disease or injury so I think you're wrong on this but look up the definition for yourself. A lot of women don't experience being pregnant either and if you think men don't experience pregnancy you've never been a father.
Just because it isn't a disease or injury doesn't mean it isn't a medical condition. Men experience pregnancy through observation. Not the same thing as actual hands on experience. You guys seem to have a hard time understanding the difference, but I don't get the obsession with so-called pro lifers trying to shame women for something they will never understand.
Speaking of 3 parent children, typical guy fantasy, but I'd like to be in a 3 way relationship with 2 women and when it came time to have kids.. take their eggs and merge the DNA. Suck out the guts of one egg and put it in the other and have children who all 3 of us are its biological parents. I just think that's neat.
I think the genetics behind 3-parent children is brilliant. I was reading they can do it because of mitochondrial DNA. Lol do it twice, on twins AND unrelated women. The possibilities are astounding!!
Just dispose of the 3-headed babies and you're on to something. The possibilities are astounding indeed but the anti-GMO people are sure to object.
Pro life, if you don't want a child give it up for adoption, plenty of people out there that would appreciate it and take care of a life that some people just throw away like its nothing.
no, there is actually a very fine line between fetus, baby, and adult In reality none is worth less than the other. To many people saying abortion is OK is like saying murder is ok -yuri
It makes no sense a fetus is only a hunk of bothersome flesh one moment and ten minutes later it's a precious baby. One would think it's status would be related to it's developmental stage or age, not it's physical location.