A federal judge blocked an Indiana law Thursday that would have banned abortions sought because of a fetus' genetic abnormalities, saying that the state does not have the authority to limit a woman's reasons for ending a pregnancy.

Conservative here, Please read the whole thing because I will make a completely logical proposal that is not at all rooted in religion or mysticism and strictly based on freedom of association and science.

** Defining Human: ** Abortion is by all accounts murder. The point at which a "human" exists is at conception. This is the logical scientific point considering all the development humans continue to make outside of the womb until the age of ~21-25. One wouldn't call a pre-pubescent human not a human, just not a fully developed human. A fetus is just as much a stage of development. This leaves 2 logical points at which a human-being exists; either at full formation ~21-25 years old (a compelling argument can be made here; which I do not agree with nor will make) or at conception. ** The Proposal: ** My proposal considers the simple fact that no women should be forced to have a child. I agree with this premise because the child by definition is taking from the mother. This is the definition of theft if taken without consent. The mother has no obligation as an individual (morality aside) to the child and its well-being unless a contract has been drawn. Since no contract has been drawn, and the mother has voluntarily hosted the child, she should have, at any time, the right to withdraw her services. (Yes, anytime until a birth certificate and legal guardianship (contract) has been determined. – This by the way is why men who sign birth-certs of children not theirs should be accountable. Side note: As it stands now, no one is forced to be a parent but are forced to give birth in certain instances. Almost every state I believe gives you the option to immediately give the baby to the state. So legality has been discussed, and all parties are not coerced into any activity they have not agreed to. This is freedom. Next question is what happens to the baby? So it seems I have opened the door for abortion from day 0 to delivery. This however is not true, I have rather made the case for eviction and termination of service. Therefore the only legally permissible action against the fetus (human), is to force him/her to cease their action. The doctor must then take every reasonable measure to remove the fetus (human) from this womb without harming it (current abortion practices are incredibly invasive and the equivalent of crushing someone’s skull). The doctor must then attempt to keep the patient (fetus/human) alive, as part of his obligation as a medical professional. *But he will fail! There is a limit to how soon you can remove a baby from the womb. Incubation won’t cut it! * That’s right, every time the doctor removes the fetus he must try to treat and resuscitate it. Because the truth is incubation technology didn’t always work for fetus’s as young as the ones they currently work for. We got better in terms of technology, and as more cases of fetus’s dying from removal exist, our incubation technology will improve to save even more lives (demand side economics).

The fact is the environment is killing all of us and medicine has always been the vanguard to equalize us in health despite circumstance. Just like lung cancer is avoidable (to a degree) by not smoking, fetal death is avoidable (to a degree) by developing in the womb. We don’t turn a blind eye to the lung cancer patient, we continue to look for cures, because even if he did smoke he is still a person. Even if the fetus was unwanted, it is still a person. Incubation technology is the key. We don’t just kill lung cancer patients, we shouldn’t’ just kill fetuses. ** Why this proposal will fail: ** One word, Emotion. The true agenda for and against abortion is emotionally driven. There are indeed conservative bible thumpers who want everything in wedlock due to their god. And while I agree that Christian values (and religious values) are the foundation for great societies, people using them to exert force on others is fundamentally wrong from all moralist stands (all religions oppose it as well) and for free people. On the other side of the coin, the pro-abortion-ers are driven by a want of acceptance. The people having the abortion don’t want the baby, that is true. However if the baby were born, and they are the biological parent, there is a cultural backlash. The women would be considered loose, the man a deadbeat. The individuals would be viewed in lines with ghetto trash and white trash since they don’t take care of their own off-spring and instead create a social burden. In short they don’t want to accept any of the consequences of their actions. Sex is fine, I’m not saying it’s bad but everything has a consequence. Eating too much bad food makes you fat. Having frequent unprotected sex will result in a baby. We have to accept those consequences and in a sane world there is a cost for not accepting those consequences, the judgment of others. Fat people are less desirable associates as are people with bastards being raised by the state. The proposed solution abortion presents is the same solution anti-fat-shaming wants. Ignore and force acceptance. With fat-shaming there is only the person getting fat as the victim. With abortion a human life is lost. I urge the logic in all of you to understand that this is to my best estimation the most free and humane way to deal with this. There is another component not discussed which is the economic ramifications of having more bastards raised by the state that I have not pondered. Brining people in line with the reality of their consequences (allowing the stigma to stand) is one way the economic cost is diminished. We may have to consider it just a part of the ever-expanding welfare budget, and perhaps cut other bad programs, for the sake of raising these children. Because they are in fact people, even if they aren’t wanted.

/r/news Thread Parent Link - chicagotribune.com