JanieDough
V.I.P User
Why would she want to save a baby that hasn't been born yet? If she wants to save a baby she should adopt a child.
because in order to save it it has to go in some one...
Why would she want to save a baby that hasn't been born yet? If she wants to save a baby she should adopt a child.
Every innovation begins with discussion of some sort. I'm confident we have the technology and innovative minds to do this. Maybe the person simply hasn't thought of it yet. Maybe she/he will surf the web and happen across this thread, spurring the idea.Well when that happens, we can start discussing it. I see no point in discussing something that might or might not happen. But to answer your question, yes I think that would be a better alternative that abortion, but I think that it should be only transplanted into infertile women. Kind of like an embryo transfer.Oops I accidentally clicked Yes. My vote is No.
I agree with you that every woman should be able to chose.
But if I found out that some one aborted their child just because it had down syndrome I would think horrible things about them...
my boss had a kid with spina bifida - i may have spelled that wrong
and now she talks to other couples who are considering abortion because of this - she has talked a few out of it and their kids as well as hers have turned out to be just as loveable as any other child and their disabilities range from very mild to severe.
you never know how the disability will come out or if it will at all.
First, a cutesy little smile after an angry statement looks a little dumb.
Second, I think you're posting in the wrong thread. This is about transplanting a fetus into the womb of another woman willing to have and raise the child. This isn't about forcing a woman to carry the baby to term.
Does that make a difference?
most disabilities are don't come out with a happy ending.
I think we are disagreeing on what defines happy ending, and not the actual outcome of these births.
I don't see children born with down syndrome or any other disability as a bad thing or a mistake that should have been aborted, and I don't think anyone else should either.
I asked this question in a different thread but it got lost in the storm.
If doctors developed a safe procedure to transplant a fetus from one womb to another, such as from an unwilling mother to a woman who wants to carry the baby to term, should the bio-mom still be able to abort rather than allow life with another mother?
i think she means still as second time as in on two pollsjust curious - but why?
just in my own opinion I don't think it would be the greatest life to lead, for you or the child. I'm sure the marriage would be a rough one. I can't imagine the future of the child, living with mommy and daddy for the rest of their lives b/c the majority of them don't get married or can't even hold a job.
1. Who will pay for this newly developed procedure?
2. Which would be less costly? Abortion or newly developed procedure?
3. What if the non-biological mother changes her mind once the baby delivers? Then who takes on the responsibility?
4. Who decides which non-biological mother is the right one for each particular fetus and situation?
Those are just some of the questions I have for now.
i think she means still as second time as in on two polls
might have it wrong though
lol...red red - details! just buy it!
poof it's just like abortion but you save the fetus.
Janie Janie.... It's always about the details.
I ain't buying anything without knowing all the details. Period. End of report. That's all she wrote.
That opens up a whole new can of worms Accountable. At what point in time is a fetus a life? Is it really a life at the instant of conception or when it's born? Once the individual answers that to herself they can move on with the decision to implant or not.Why on earth not? Why should a woman's life have priority over a child's life, especially if a similar procedure takes place either way?
do you know any special needs kids or parents or anything like that? like is your opinion from experience or what?
yes and no. I know no one with DS but my cousin is now I guess what you would call special needs due to a disease...and i do not want their lives for one second. My cousin doesn't even have a life. He can't talk, eat, walk...nothing. He just sits in a wheel chair all day or his bed watching tv. He's 15 years old and has to get his diaper changed....what kind of happy ending is that
Well, I hadn't expected to get into the weeds about this, but okay, I'll give it my best shot.1. Who will pay for this newly developed procedure?
2. Which would be less costly? Abortion or newly developed procedure?
3. What if the non-biological mother changes her mind once the baby delivers? Then who takes on the responsibility?
4. Who decides which non-biological mother is the right one for each particular fetus and situation?
Those are just some of the questions I have for now.
Well I can see if you are upset about that, but for most these kids they don't know that it's not normal to be them. They don't know they are stupid or disabled. Or when they do realize this it doesn't bother them.
I really think you need to spend time with more kids with special needs before you express the fact that they should be aborted.
It wouldn't be a can of worms if the procedure becomes reality. The only reason it's a can of worms now is because politicians got their wormy fucking fingers into it. Science says that a cell dividing on its own is sign of life. I'm happy with that. It's a damn sight more straightforward than any votemonger can cook up.That opens up a whole new can of worms Accountable. At what point in time is a fetus a life? Is it really a life at the instant of conception or when it's born? Once the individual answers that to herself they can move on with the decision to implant or not.
no i don't need time. I know what I would do if I had to come up with a decision. I'm looking at the quality of life...
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.