Why are our tax dollars going to fund other countries'' abortions?

[MoonWater]

Date: 2/1/2009 11:20:52 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 2/1/2009 10:54:32 PM

Author: Maria D

Date: 2/1/2009 9:18:40 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006


Maria, this could not be further from the truth. I have already stated on this thread that I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not. Once that decision is made, and if the woman becomes pregnant, then yes, at that point I will speak for the unborn baby.


I don't really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can't say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life.


I can't see why I should 'spout my views' on a TTC thread. I hope for all those girls that they will be able to have a baby. Wouldn't that be what everyone would say on a TTC thread???? I'd certainly encourage them to consider adoption if they can't conceive because adoption was as great a blessing in my life as giving birth was. But if they want to try medical treatment to conceive, I am 100% supportive of them doing so.

Diamondseeker, in my opinion you should NOT spout your views on a TTC thread. No one who is considering in-vitro needs to hear about YOUR problems with creating too many embryos that might then need to be destroyed. But go right ahead and keep on speaking for these 'unborn babies' when the topic of abortion comes up. That way any woman who has had one, who is considering one, or who would consider one in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can be rightfully offended by your views and the way that you'll come right out and say that HER views are wrong. Those woman deserve it anyway. It's not like they want to become mothers, they just want to have sex without necessarily having children, shame! It doesn't matter if THEY don't believe that sacred life begins at conception; it's all about what YOU believe.


By the way, your definition of pro-choice had me laughing out loud. 'I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not.' Wow! You should read the report that Luckystar cited. It said that the vast majority of women who have repeat abortions consistently use birth control. It's not about irresponsibility. It's about a back-up plan for women who don't equate zygotes and embryos with babies.

Maria, I am not sure why you choose to use such a condescending tone to me, but I DID already say that I saw no reason to 'spout my views' (to use your terms) on a TTC thread. I said I would encourage them JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.


Any woman who is 100% sure of her views on abortion and chooses to have one shouldn't be in the least offended or even care if I have another view. If they see it is as the perfect option for them and the mass of cells not a baby, so be it. But I have just as much right to have an opinion as does anyone else, and I have every right to express it.


I love how liberals love to promote tolerance except when people disagree with them.

I think you completely missed the point she was making.

Using your logic, any woman that is 100% sure of her views on invitro and chooses to do so shouldn't be the least offended or even care if you did decide to go into a thread offering an opposing view. Do you understand? The point is, if you have respect for those women enough not to give your possibly offensive view, why can you not offer the same courtesy to women who have had, will have, are thinking of having an abortion?

Maria pointed out the double standard. If you think a life begins at conception, or when cells divide, or whatever beliefs people claimed, then you believe the same in ALL regards. You should be just as willing to preach to people that use/will use invitro as you are to those that have/will have an abortion.

 

[zhuzhu]

"I don''t really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can''t say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life. "

I do not want to really debate the abortion. However I suggest those who want to take a moral stand at IVF first learn more about the medicine and biological facts behind the procedure. Not everything is black and white.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 2/1/2009 11:27:45 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Well, as I said, my personal views align with yours, so I'm probably not the person to do the reasoning. But if I had to take a stab at it, it probably is because invitro inherently is about creating life while abortion is about terminating it (let's use the argument that 'life' begins at conception). So if one only created as many embryos needed to implant, all of them would be given a shot at life. If they didn't take, it wouldn't be because they were terminated.

We think alike, because that is what I said a page or two ago. I think it is also where diamondseeker is going with her opinion as well.
P.S. Totally disagree with "against female sexuality" comment. Geeze. My hubby disagrees too.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 2/1/2009 11:27:45 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Well, as I said, my personal views align with yours, so I''m probably not the person to do the reasoning. But if I had to take a stab at it, it probably is because invitro inherently is about creating life while abortion is about terminating it (let''s use the argument that ''life'' begins at conception). So if one only created as many embryos needed to implant, all of them would be given a shot at life. If they didn''t take, it wouldn''t be because they were terminated.

However, that''s an oversimplication and doesn''t tackle the issues that make this whole thing so divisive.

Again, my very strong view that my own personal beliefs should not be forced upon others is why I am pro choice.

I think that argument is flawed...lucky already said the same thing in this thread, and here was my response:

"...in in vitro fertilization, many embryos are created on purpose in order to later select the most viable ones. So many "lives" are created when only a few are actually used. So they are creating life even though they know they will eventually end it.

Going by your argument, then, isn''t in vitro more barbaric than abortion? Because they''re creating life on purpose, only to destroy it, and when a woman gets an abortion, I think it''s usually safe to say she did not create life on purpose."

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 2/2/2009 1:52:45 AM
Author: thing2of2


I think that argument is flawed...lucky already said the same thing in this thread, and here was my response:

''...in in vitro fertilization, many embryos are created on purpose in order to later select the most viable ones. So many ''lives'' are created when only a few are actually used. So they are creating life even though they know they will eventually end it.

Going by your argument, then, isn''t in vitro more barbaric than abortion? Because they''re creating life on purpose, only to destroy it, and when a woman gets an abortion, I think it''s usually safe to say she did not create life on purpose.''

I missed that the first time. for some reason. Very interesting.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/2/2009 1:52:45 AM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 2/1/2009 11:27:45 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Well, as I said, my personal views align with yours, so I''m probably not the person to do the reasoning. But if I had to take a stab at it, it probably is because invitro inherently is about creating life while abortion is about terminating it (let''s use the argument that ''life'' begins at conception). So if one only created as many embryos needed to implant, all of them would be given a shot at life. If they didn''t take, it wouldn''t be because they were terminated.

However, that''s an oversimplication and doesn''t tackle the issues that make this whole thing so divisive.

Again, my very strong view that my own personal beliefs should not be forced upon others is why I am pro choice.

I think that argument is flawed...lucky already said the same thing in this thread, and here was my response:

''...in in vitro fertilization, many embryos are created on purpose in order to later select the most viable ones. So many ''lives'' are created when only a few are actually used. So they are creating life even though they know they will eventually end it.

Going by your argument, then, isn''t in vitro more barbaric than abortion? Because they''re creating life on purpose, only to destroy it, and when a woman gets an abortion, I think it''s usually safe to say she did not create life on purpose.''

It depends...what the parents to be decide.

If someone doesn''t have a problem with abortion, I guess they wouldn''t have a problem with creating as many as it takes to get good odds for viable embryos and discarding, giving to science, or whatever, the ones that they don''t use.

Another couple, who do have a problem with the "life" issue, might create less embryos because they intend to implant/freeze what they have without discarding any of the viable ones. They would have no intent to create life, only to "destroy" it.

If the embryo isn''t viable, I would think that even if it were inserted, it most likely would not implant? I''d have to look into that one though. Then it seems to me that it isn''t barbaric because it would not have had a chance to continue living even if given the chance to continue to grow and live.

As I said, my friend is having a hard time even thinking about trying IVF because she is afraid that there will be even one viable embryo that won''t be used. She''s afraid to go through the entire thing multiple times if she only has a small amount of embryos created each time and they don''t take. Neither of us have researched it too much (she, because she is still trying to conceive naturally, and me because I have a kid and don''t think I want another) so take what I say with a grain of salt...I''m no authority on IVF.

I do think the argument, as you said, is flawed however. But I''m just answering the question that on a surface level, maybe that''s why people don''t have as much of an issue with IVF over abortion.

 

[zhuzhu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_tube_baby

Unused embryos kept in the freezer are as good as "dead" (were they "alive" to begin with?), and are known to create ownership legal issue in the case when the "parents" get divorce. There are many good use of the "left over embryos" from IVF. One can donate them to couples who can not conceive, or for stem cell research which will one day save millions of lives.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/2/2009 3:14:16 AM
Author: zhuzhu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_tube_baby

Unused embryos kept in the freezer are as good as ''dead'' (were they ''alive'' to begin with?), and are known to create ownership legal issue in the case when the ''parents'' get divorce. There are many good use of the ''left over embryos'' from IVF. One can donate them to couples who can not conceive, or for stem cell research which will one day save millions of lives.

I''m not clear as to why you say this?

Kind of a amusing bit on the whole frozen thing: I mentioned that friend who has two daughters, 3 years apart but the embryos were created at the same time so the younger one was obviously preserved for a while. The friend mentioned that the younger one has a constantly runny noise, to which my other friend said, "Of course she does...she was kept frozen for 3 years! She''s cold!"

 

[zhuzhu]

I should have written more clearly.
I meant those embryos that parents have no intention of ever using again and just "keep around" because they do not want to "kill a life".

 

[MoonWater]

Regardless of whether some couples only create as many embryos as they plan to use, that can be considered an exception. Just like some women who choose to have an abortion as a result of raped/incest/mother''s life in danger. The point Maria D was making is that far more people (and it doesn''t mean someone in this thread) feel the need to protest, be vocal, and in some cases be violent (kill the abortion doctors/blow up the clinic, yup, makes perfect logical sense), in order to express their negative views on abortion. Yet, we do not see the equivalent in regards to in vitro which "kills" life as well. There is a double standard.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/2/2009 12:34:52 PM
Author: MoonWater
Regardless of whether some couples only create as many embryos as they plan to use, that can be considered an exception. Just like some women who choose to have an abortion as a result of raped/incest/mother''s life in danger. The point Maria D was making is that far more people (and it doesn''t mean someone in this thread) feel the need to protest, be vocal, and in some cases be violent (kill the abortion doctors/blow up the clinic, yup, makes perfect logical sense), in order to express their negative views on abortion. Yet, we do not see the equivalent in regards to in vitro which ''kills'' life as well. There is a double standard.

Indeed. IMO it is a double standard if one considers embryo a "life" therefore equates abortion = killing, yet considers the destruction of embryos from IVF process as acceptable. More ironically, some considers destroying the leftover embryos as an acceptable practice but calls embryo stem cell research murder.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/2/2009 12:34:52 PM
Author: MoonWater
Regardless of whether some couples only create as many embryos as they plan to use, that can be considered an exception. Just like some women who choose to have an abortion as a result of raped/incest/mother''s life in danger. The point Maria D was making is that far more people (and it doesn''t mean someone in this thread) feel the need to protest, be vocal, and in some cases be violent (kill the abortion doctors/blow up the clinic, yup, makes perfect logical sense), in order to express their negative views on abortion. Yet, we do not see the equivalent in regards to in vitro which ''kills'' life as well. There is a double standard.

I do agree with the point you made at the end of your post. At least it certainly seems there is a double standard.

However, it may be considered an exception when you consider that most people who do go the IVF route have no problem with abortion. We don''t know if it''s an exception for those that DO have a problem with the "life" issue.

The point was made that people who have a problem with abortion usually don''t have IVF and they asked why. I tried to answer that question (as thing2of2 said the argument I presented was flawed).

With any movement, there are going to be radical wingnuts. I would say most people who are against abortion do not advocate killing abortion doctors, blowing up clinics, etc. That''s just like saying the all the anti prop 8 people are for vandilizing churches. Gay people I know, while frustrated with the way the vote went and the messages that were presented for Prop 8 are not condoning of that kind of behavior. I would say the numbnuts who are bombing clinics and killing doctors are not people that can be reasoned with, hence any argument about invitro vs abortion would be way over their heads.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 2/2/2009 1:30:04 PM
Author: zhuzhu

Date: 2/2/2009 12:34:52 PM
Author: MoonWater
Regardless of whether some couples only create as many embryos as they plan to use, that can be considered an exception. Just like some women who choose to have an abortion as a result of raped/incest/mother''s life in danger. The point Maria D was making is that far more people (and it doesn''t mean someone in this thread) feel the need to protest, be vocal, and in some cases be violent (kill the abortion doctors/blow up the clinic, yup, makes perfect logical sense), in order to express their negative views on abortion. Yet, we do not see the equivalent in regards to in vitro which ''kills'' life as well. There is a double standard.

Indeed. IMO it is a double standard if one considers embryo a ''life'' therefore equates abortion = killing, yet considers the destruction of embryos from IVF process as acceptable. More ironically, some considers destroying the leftover embryos as an acceptable practice but calls embryo stem cell research murder.

Out of curiosity, how many people do you know who are completely anti abortion yet choose to do IVF with an over surplus of embryos created?

I''m not saying I disagree...I do agree. But are we saying this just to be anti-abortionists in a corner? Because the women that I know who are pro-life would have the exact same issue with IVF.

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/2/2009 2:30:18 PM
Author: TravelingGal


Out of curiosity, how many people do you know who are completely anti abortion yet choose to do IVF with an over surplus of embryos created?


I'm not saying I disagree...I do agree. But are we saying this just to be anti-abortionists in a corner? Because the women that I know who are pro-life would have the exact same issue with IVF.

I was merely referring to the philosophy of the "killing embryo is murder" argument. I was not placing judgment on any specific group of people for what they do or don't do. Medicine is complex, and one must weight the risk/benefit ratio seriously before proceeding forward. Is embryo a life? Does embryo have any moral status? These are the personal questions want-to-be mothers have to think through and answer for themselves.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/2/2009 12:04:15 AM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 2/1/2009 11:20:52 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 2/1/2009 10:54:32 PM

Author: Maria D

Date: 2/1/2009 9:18:40 PM

Author: diamondseeker2006


Maria, this could not be further from the truth. I have already stated on this thread that I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not. Once that decision is made, and if the woman becomes pregnant, then yes, at that point I will speak for the unborn baby.


I don''t really see anything wrong with in vitro, although I can''t say I have done extensive study on that topic. I would have a problem with creating too many embryos and subsequently killing them. Create only as many embryos as you are prepared to implant. In that, I am totally consistent with my view of the protection of innocent human life.


I can''t see why I should ''spout my views'' on a TTC thread. I hope for all those girls that they will be able to have a baby. Wouldn''t that be what everyone would say on a TTC thread???? I''d certainly encourage them to consider adoption if they can''t conceive because adoption was as great a blessing in my life as giving birth was. But if they want to try medical treatment to conceive, I am 100% supportive of them doing so.

Diamondseeker, in my opinion you should NOT spout your views on a TTC thread. No one who is considering in-vitro needs to hear about YOUR problems with creating too many embryos that might then need to be destroyed. But go right ahead and keep on speaking for these ''unborn babies'' when the topic of abortion comes up. That way any woman who has had one, who is considering one, or who would consider one in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can be rightfully offended by your views and the way that you''ll come right out and say that HER views are wrong. Those woman deserve it anyway. It''s not like they want to become mothers, they just want to have sex without necessarily having children, shame! It doesn''t matter if THEY don''t believe that sacred life begins at conception; it''s all about what YOU believe.


By the way, your definition of pro-choice had me laughing out loud. ''I am totally pro-choice on women choosing to have sex or not and to use birth control or not.'' Wow! You should read the report that Luckystar cited. It said that the vast majority of women who have repeat abortions consistently use birth control. It''s not about irresponsibility. It''s about a back-up plan for women who don''t equate zygotes and embryos with babies.

Maria, I am not sure why you choose to use such a condescending tone to me, but I DID already say that I saw no reason to ''spout my views'' (to use your terms) on a TTC thread. I said I would encourage them JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE.


Any woman who is 100% sure of her views on abortion and chooses to have one shouldn''t be in the least offended or even care if I have another view. If they see it is as the perfect option for them and the mass of cells not a baby, so be it. But I have just as much right to have an opinion as does anyone else, and I have every right to express it.


I love how liberals love to promote tolerance except when people disagree with them.

I think you completely missed the point she was making.

Using your logic, any woman that is 100% sure of her views on invitro and chooses to do so shouldn''t be the least offended or even care if you did decide to go into a thread offering an opposing view. Do you understand? The point is, if you have respect for those women enough not to give your possibly offensive view, why can you not offer the same courtesy to women who have had, will have, are thinking of having an abortion?

Maria pointed out the double standard. If you think a life begins at conception, or when cells divide, or whatever beliefs people claimed, then you believe the same in ALL regards. You should be just as willing to preach to people that use/will use invitro as you are to those that have/will have an abortion.

I wonder how many times I need to restate this in this thread. I am against abortion in most cases and am against creation of excessive embryos to later destroy. The only place I can recall stating these views is on this thread and maybe one other within this forum (ATW) in the past. I can recall one post from someone considering an abortion since I have been on PS, and as far as I can recall, I most certainly did NOT give any statement of my personal opinion as to the morality of abortion. I think I encouraged her to carefully think about all her options including adoption. Around the World is a forum for all kinds of political and other newsworthy topics of the day, and something like abortion can be discussed just like any other topic such as taxes, war, the economy, etc. It is an entirely different issue to go into a personal thread in FHH and insert ones views in a hurtful manner. And since I have NEVER done that, I am not sure why this keeps being brought up! Do you understand?

 

[MoonWater]

DS, it appears that the problem you are having is that you are viewing this as a personal thing on YOUR particular beliefs (and apparently limited within this particular board) when Maria's post was a general about anti-choice people. You don't do what was stated, fine, the fact remains that far more people want to force their views via protest, posting on a forum, or violence, against abortion but there is no equivalent for in vitro even though BOTH "destroys life." If you remove self from this equation perhaps you'll understand what she (and I) was saying.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/2/2009 5:23:34 PM
Author: MoonWater
DS, it appears that the problem you are having is that you are viewing this as a personal thing on YOUR particular beliefs when Maria''s post was a general about anti-choice people. You don''t do what was stated, fine, the fact remains that far more people want to force their views via protest, posting on a forum, or violence, against abortion but there is no equivalent for in vitro even though BOTH ''destroys life.'' If you remove self from this equation perhaps you''ll understand what she was saying.

Fine, but I personally know a lot of people who are anti-abortion, and as far as I know, all of them would be consistent on the views that I expressed toward abortion and in-vitro. In fact, I would think it is pretty much common knowledge that the opposition to embryonic stem cell research is coming from pro-life/anti-abortion advocates. Just because there are lunatics out there with no common sense or decency, such as those who resort to violence, that does not mean that the other 99.99% of people approve of such things. The people I know are too busy adopting children or volunteering to help women at crisis pregnancy centers. You hear about the minute number of people who get themselves in the newspaper.

 

[MoonWater]

DS, everything you are saying is irrelevant. I'm not trying to be snarky or mean or whatever someone will come up with so they can cry fowl. I'm sticking to the logic point of this argument which is pretty clear. Regardless of anecdotes it is pretty apparent that there is FAR MORE opposition (in its various incarnations) in regard to abortion than it is against in-vitro (and I did not bring up stem cell research). There is a clear double standard.

The end.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 2/2/2009 5:46:21 PM
Author: MoonWater
DS, everything you are saying is irrelevant. I''m not trying to be snarky or mean or whatever someone will come up with so they can cry fowl. I''m sticking to the logic point of this argument which is pretty clear. Regardless of anecdotes it is pretty apparent that there is FAR MORE opposition (in its various incarnations) in regard to abortion than it is against in-vitro (and I did not bring up stem cell research). There is a clear double standard.

The end.

It is "pretty apparent"? I must have missed your scientific data that proved that point, MW.