Abortion and politics

Well the jury is still out on whether adult stem cells will be as beneficial as embryonic stem cells.

The article also mentions another hot topic for debate on how fertility clinics treat unused embryos. Those of you that are so against abortions do you feel it's morally wrong to have unused embryos too? Do you think the morning after pill is also wrong?

I am not so much trying to argue about things here as I am trying to understand how and why people believe as they do.

 

I find life precious and not disposable. I think its great Patti that you wouldn't have an abortion but who is going to be the voice for the innocent unborn?
And we did legislate morality until the 70's. If your going to bring up back alley abortions, I'm sure there were some. But we just out and out kill babies now, because they will get in the way of our lifestyle and that's wrong! And we have and we will pay for it.

 

Depends on how one defines "life", even without considering the spiritual take.

 

let's say that there's a family with a small child and they adhere to the beliefs of a particular sect of christianity that doesn't like certain forms of medical intervention. let's say their child grows ill and they refuse to allow treatment, and instead they pray. the child dies. was it murder? was it freedom of religion?

 

You have to do what's best for your child.
I'm wondering if your going down the road of using something from an aborted fetus to keep the child alive?

 

sly's question about who is making the decisions for the child (in regards to an unborn fetus) got me wondering. in general, children are somewhere between citizens and property. parents make most of the decisions for their children.

there was a thread on tbr relatively recently about a child that got a blood transfusion against the will of the parents. some members, if i recall, implied the gov't didn't have the power to force treatment on the child since the parents thought transfusions were wrong (in the religious sense).

 

In my opinion...

The parents ought to be booked on murder 2. There was no intent to kill the child (as there is in abortion) but the terms gross negligence and reckless endangerment definitely apply. If I'm not mistaken, the way the law is written today "freedom of religion" can be overridden in those cases when a child's life is at stake. And I think that's a good thing.

I believe our society should act in the interest of protecting its people, and especially its children, regardless of possible infringement on religious beliefs. If that mandate interferes with my beliefs, I'll risk the penalty or leave.

 

I would look at it the same way I would if a mother and a child (say 2 years old) were in a fire and the mother could only save herself or the child.

I personally do not have any exceptions to it being wrong but I can see the point of some exceptions.