Hey Straggler.
Straggler writes:
Catholic Scientist writes:
If there's nothing you could do about it, sure.
And where you can do something about it? Are you saying that if we redirected all the medical resources currently aimed at cancer for example that we could not save many of those lost conceptuses that never even make it to the implanting in the uterus stage of development? We would need to save only a small percentage in order to outstrip those that we can save from cancer.
The technology's already there, fellas. It's call
fertility treatments. I can guarantee you that with Clomid, injectable treatments like Follistim, as well as intrauterine insemination or hell, IVF if you want to go "all in", we'd whittle that 70% down by maybe three-quarters (a good faith estimate
). We'd have to make these treatments mandatory for all women of childbearing age, regardless of cost, because, you know, cost shouldn't be a consideration when considering the life of death of the unborn.
Yes, it's a ridiculous premise, but one I thought was interesting. Would Hyro then argue we'd need to go this far, if it's indeed a possibility? To what end? Overpopulation? As if it doesn't exist already! How far will the pro-life crowd wish to extend the argument? If it doesn't necessarily extend to the lengths I outlined above, then I believe one's standpoint need be reevaluated.
Have a good one.
Edited by Apothecus, : whoops! hit "reply" to wrong message. oh well, you gents get the point...