Big Mike;356624 wrote
Neonatal care becomes more advanced with each passing year. Even now it is possible that in the same city (same hospital? not sure.) in North America there is right now a fetus being terminated at the same level of development as is a child being saved after a premature birth.
What if we advance to the point where a child can be developed outside the uterus from the moment of conception? What if a woman's options become Have an Abortion or Have it Removed (to be developed another way then adopted).
Science that can do this, you're right, may be available already. But science isn't telling you what choice to make, it presents and respects that you will do what you deem best for your situation, unlike the pro-life squad
Costs would be enormous, but a)Abortions aren't free either and b) this would give the Christians/Muslims/Jews/Other Anti-Killing groups the chance to put their money where their mouths are.
What do you mean money where the mouths are? Are the pro-lifers supposed to be adopting these kids? Funding the procedures? Also, if we haven't the technology already, why do I feel that the god crowd would be against the "unnatural" method of gestating a fetus?
Anyway, what if in the future they look back at the days when children were killed in staggering numbers just because they were helpless and think we were barbarians?
And further - isn't it interesting that the role of Science is reversed here? I mean, there's a pretty sound scientific argument that not only is a fetus a individual person, it is also alive. The counterargument is based only on what some person or persons decided to proclaim and others have followed: "we don't consider them human. They receive no human rights because they are embryos / fetus whatever the term is. Face it, you're not a "person" until you are squeezed out of a vagina / ripped from the abdomen. They do not have "life" as of yet."
Yet it is the christians condemned for following rhetoric and ignoring science. Hmm.
This last part is a pretty solid argument, but, science is not just technology / medical advances. There are scientific studies such as psychology and sociology that (though not as precise as say math and physics), could also be utilized to provide you with a more accurate measure of the likelihood of successful parenting. You're a well established successful couple in their early 30s? Pretty high resources for a child. You're an illiterate 18 year old kid with 4 credits and a criminal record? Maybe not so much. Note again, science is not passing judgement, it gives facts. THIS is the crux of my issue with the pro-life people.
The buzzword of this generation is bullying. You want to see bullies? Look at the people standing outside of the hospital down the street from me with their placards claiming the sin of abortion. How dare you pressure and chastise someone who may be going through the hardest decision of their lives.
Your point about science recognizing a fetus as a wholly separate entity, well, that would come down to empirical definitions. I'm sure any study would refer to it as a fetus / embryo, and not "child". Also, if you're going to say it is a child, how come I haven't heard the religious folks say that a woman should be charged with child abuse / endangerment when she drinks / smokes / does drugs while pregnant? If a woman miscarries, should she be considered neglectful? The argument of a fetus having full recognition as a human being simply does not exist, and I don't frankly think it should.
Mark