The Fallacy of the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life Labels

D

Djinn

Was wondering when someone would finally raise that issue.

Ain't got an answer.
Pfeh... I know I'd already brought it up a few pages back. ;)

But more importantly, it's a very important consideration. In summary, in vitro fertilization entails collecting eggs and sperm from their respective donors. The eggs are fertilized, and then some of them are implanted.

But here's the kicker... They don't implant one fertilized egg; they implant two or three. Why? Because they know that statistically, one or two of them will not survive. Frequently, NONE of them survive, and more are implanted.

If a woman with fertility problems undergoes four or five IVF treatments, it's entirely possible that over a DOZEN fertilized eggs are killed in the process - and this isn't a particularly rare scenario. By contrast, I've never heard of a woman that underwent a dozen abortions.

I have a hard time reconciling how one can be anti-abortion, and simultaneously accepting of in-vitro fertilization.

Update: I just looked it up... The odds of an IVF treatment resulting in a viable pregnancy are only about one in three. In the event of a "success" one or two of the fertilized eggs are still likely to die. The other two-thirds of the time, all of the fertilized eggs will die. By the time a woman is 40 years old, the odds of success have dropped to 13%.

Source
 
F

Freedom for All

It's not a child. Why are you so keen to force an unwanted life upon mother and child?
1) Please produce evidence that the unborn child wants to die.

2) Please explain how, if you believe it's not a child, you said "mother and child".

3) What's stopping it from becoming a child?

Oh, that's right, it gets murdered before it's born.

Great distinctions you people draw.

I'm not forcing an unwanted child on anyone. I don't recall any women asking me for permission to have sex with someone else and my telling them "yes". I don't care if they have sex, but frankly, if they're not fucking me, it's really outside of my control if they decide to engage in those activities that carry a risk of them getting knocked up.

It's not my fault.

It's not the baby's fault.

It's pretty much the incubator's fault.
 
I

Infrangible

A true believer...No one will ever be able to convince such as these that ripping a fetus apart purely for convenience is wrong. No one will be able to convince such as these that it isn't actually good for society.
 
F

Freedom for All

Pfeh... I know I'd already brought it up a few pages back. ;)

But more importantly, it's a very important consideration. In summary, in vitro fertilization entails collecting eggs and sperm from their respective donors. The eggs are fertilized, and then some of them are implanted.

But here's the kicker... They don't implant one fertilized egg; they implant two or three. Why? Because they know that statistically, one or two of them will not survive. Frequently, NONE of them survive, and more are implanted.

If a woman with fertility problems undergoes four or five IVF treatments, it's entirely possible that over a DOZEN fertilized eggs are killed in the process - and this isn't a particularly rare scenario. By contrast, I've never heard of a woman that underwent a dozen abortions.

I have a hard time reconciling how one can be anti-abortion, and simultaneously accepting of in-vitro fertilization.

Update: I just looked it up... The odds of an IVF treatment resulting in a viable pregnancy are only about one in three. In the event of a "success" one or two of the fertilized eggs are still likely to die. The other two-thirds of the time, all of the fertilized eggs will die. By the time a woman is 40 years old, the odds of success have dropped to 13%.

Source
I don't have to be accepting of in vitro fertilizations. It's not an issue anyone is going to control or terminate.

I would expect that as the technology improves the fetal mortality rates will decline and the success rates improve.

To a large degree this issue is parallel to, but not identical with, the common boob that gets herself knocked up and can't deal with it. Implanted eggs die all the time, women have miscarriages.

It's not like volunteering to inject saline solution into the uterus to deliberately kill a child, or like surgically dismembering a fetus to get it out, or forcing a breech birth to kill a perfectly viable child before it's born.

And it's not even like pouring the extra fertilized ova from in vitro down the sink. It's not like those eggs are ever going to find a mother. It's a shame, but technology has always helped shape and limit morality.

Just ask the socialist as they're waving their machine guns around collecting taxes.
 
P

paddys4anarchy

1) Kid's born with serious illnesses are a burden not only on themselves but others, and parents weren't aware of this when they decided to have a child. Better to sort out the distinction before the child is given a shit life with parents that resent it for spoiling there's. That's one example. Want more?

2) Because at the point you were referring to, it's not a child. However in the future that you want to give it, it will be a child. Things grow up :jawdrop:

3) You're assuming all those in need of an abortion are stupid mothers who couldn't keep their legs together or stick a crisp packet up there first. What about rape victims? If the mother was simply too stupid to say no she's not going to be great at helping her kids live by your treasured principles is she.
 
D

Djinn

A true believer...No one will ever be able to convince such as these that ripping a fetus apart purely for convenience is wrong. No one will be able to convince such as these that it isn't actually good for society.
When is it acceptable to kill a healthy fetus?
 
D

Djinn

... 3) You're assuming all those in need of an abortion are stupid mothers who couldn't keep their legs together or stick a crisp packet up there first. What about rape victims? If the mother was simply too stupid to say no she's not going to be great at helping her kids live by your treasured principles is she.
There's another demographic to consider. My wife and I enjoy a happy monogamous marriage. We have two wonderful kids, no desire for a third, and no intention of ending our monogamous sex life.

Long story short, we can't afford a third child. If she became pregnant, I would absolutely prefer that she undergo an abortion. A third child would stretch our finite resources considerably, drawing from those dedicated to our two planned children. Obviously, the final decision is hers; it's her womb. All I can do is present my opinion on the subject.

Tubal litigations? Vasectomies? Maybe someday, but not yet. I'm a realist, and while my two kids are happy and healthy, there's always the chance that something terrible will happen, and I'll lose one of them. If that happens, and we're still young enough, we want our reproductive systems in full working order.