The fact that they would work to end that life, therefore many stand in the way because of the morality of it. The Fed Gov't under just such a person would not fund such research, etc. So "excuse me" but I do live in the reality of the situation and offer a solution that both sides could embrace.
You're suggesting that unless we criminalize abortion people will be prevented from donating fetuses to science or making them available for transplantation? How does that follow?
You did not answer my question. What forces, right now, stand in the way of such a donation? I submit that there are none, other than lack of recipients.
If you want to increase federal funding to research programs that might make good use of aborted fetuses then I agree with a whole heart. We can organize support together.
If you want to make available some sort of network of infertile women looking to implant unwanted fetuses from donors then I'm all for that, too. It sounds like a great idea to me, even though I expect that the success rate will be low, at least initially. Definitely a "win-win" scenario though. I'd support federal money for such a network.
Suppose, however, we have a woman who does not want to take advantage of either option. Or, perhaps, there simply aren't any recipients available at the time crucial to her. What then? Will she be permitted an abortion, if that's her choice, or not?
Honestly, I still don't see the parameters of your offered solution. It's entirely possible that we've nothing to argue over . . . yet I can't escape this nagging sense of antagonism there. Call me paranoid, if you wish.
Just as we cannot make somebody donate a kidney upon death. But since such a program has, even if successful, the same effect for the woman as an abortion (the unwanted child would be removed and she would have no further responsibility toward it) it gives a more reasoned choice.
It gives a choice that you, personally, consider more "reasoned." It strikes me, though, that what you want is no more "reasoned" than the other. It's simply based on a different set of emotions.
You are, a priori, dismissing all of her potential concerns about having a gene-child raised in the world without her input or consent. I'm not willing to reject out of hand any qualms she might have. Her genetic descendant will be raised by . . . whomever. Evangelicals or Satanists, maybe. Who knows? I certainly don't. A woman may choose to give up her child for adoption, or she may be forced into such a decision by circumstance, but I simply can't imagine supporting any law which might
force her to do so, short of criminal behavior on her part.
It seems to me that you want to treat a fetus as an unborn child, but only so far as is convenient to your pre-existing position.
In short, I've no idea exactly why a woman might choose to avoid donating her developing fetus to another woman or to a scientific research program. I've no right to make such a blanket judgment. Nor do you, in my opinion.
You yourself say that we cannot force someone to donate a kidney unless she chooses to do so. I agree, for a number of reasons. Those same reasons apply to a fetus. A fetus is different only insofar as it is a distinct, separate human being, imbued with human rights.
Now, I admit that I'm biased. I do not and cannot see such a status conferred upon a 5 or 6 week fetus. That strikes me as a travesty and a grotesque diminution of personhood. This is another emotional reaction: the very idea literally makes me nauseous. More to the point, though, is the fact that there is no objective standard by which we can say that my position -- my prejudicial reaction -- is either right or wrong.
I would prefer if we chose to do this as a society rather than abortion. As I stated, the effect would be the same for the woman in the end. She could choose to carry or not and to raise a child or not, with much the same danger, all while society would not work to end lives wholesale without purpose other than to appease such a choice.
I agree that such a choice is . . . less emotionally disturbing. For an individual. Societies, though, make their choices through law, generally speaking. I do not and never will support any law that would criminalize a choice to the contrary. There are far too many possible reasons for not making the choice I would approve of most.
So you would force them to have only abortion as an option. To keep such a choice out of the reach of most women because of the cost...
Absolutely untrue. What in my position would deny these options to anyone? My position is quite clear: the government should make no law at all criminalizing any of a woman's options for terminating an unwanted pregnancy during her early term. Later in the pregnancy society's interests in protecting the nascent rights of the potential child do come into play, but that's later.
I actually rather like the three trimester compromise of
Roe v. Wade. It's not ultimately satisfying to any side but it is workable and clear.
Like I said, then it is your intent to force them to choose to kill or not kill. As I said I would prefer society made such an effort standard, but it isn't a requirement to find a real choice for reproduction for women. Such a program would advance this science well beyond what it is currently.
Not only is that not my intent, it isn't even the effect of my position. How do you arrive at this peculiar conclusion? My only concern is to not remove the traditional abortion as an option.
You keep saying, "Unless you intend". I intend only on promoting a solution, workable between both sides of the issue, that allows women to have much the same choice without the negative of working toward the sole solution of death for the unwanted.
Again, what is your proposed solution? Unless you are willing to criminalize abortion, your plan simply will not satisfy the fanatics of the anti-choice movement. And if you intend to criminalize early term abortion, I cannot support your proposal.
This stick is deeply cleft indeed. Time to choose sides, alas.
