Abortion

flushd wrote:

Finn,
I'd be interested to hear your thought on the 'day-after' pill.

Actually...I'd be interested to hear about the availability of the 'day-after' pill in various regions, too, if anyone can provide info.
Here it is as simply as going to a walk-in clinic, your doctor, or a woman's clinic, and asking for it. Zip to the pharm, swallow the pills, and Poof! ....no more growing thing to worry about.

I have no problem with a "day-after" pill.

I'm not fixated on when life begins.

If one makes a stupid mistake relative to birth control pre-coitus, then it is far more preferable for one to take advantage of a "day-after" pill then to resort to abortion in latter months for convenience sake.

0 Replies

That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

To some extent this issue involves a debate around how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

However, if one believe that life begins with fertilization, then the day-after pill is just another means of abortion...another snuff of a human life.

I don't have a philosophical problem with this absolute belief, but within the context of a society where there is a strong inclination towards a Woman's right to "choose," the battle is best fought in the realms of second and third trimester pregnancy.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

A typically vacuous and pathetic response Frank: "What I say is obviously correct and only a moron would question it! I'm not going to support my rant with rationale because I doubt you would understand."

You want "vacuous and pathetic responses" Finn...read your own before posting. They are all excellent examples of "vacuous and pathetic" responses.

Quote:

It reminds me of much earlier days when a kid, who was scared to death of fighting an opponent, walked away with the (attempted) sneering comment: "I'd fight you, but I'd probably kill you."

Anyone who thinks I would walk away from an argument is either blind, crazy, or an idiot. I'll leave the choice to you.

Quote:

Why do you presume that there is greater wisdom at the national level than the state or local level?

I never said there is "greater wisdom" at any level. I said there are some questions of great moment (such as slavery and the right of a woman to control her own body) that ought to be decided on a national level.

Try to deal with what I actually say...and if you have to make stuff up, save it for someone like yourself.

Quote:

What questions are fit for the local dunces to decide?

The questions that are not of great moment.

Quote:

You have completely ignored my argument that the federal dunces have repeatedly made decisions with which you would disagree, and insist that they are somehow the sages of the country.

The federal government has indeed made many decisions with which I would disagree...especially since it has been dominated by the bozos now in power.

I have never insisted that they are the sages of the country. In fact, I think the current crop are a bunch of goddam idiots.

Why do you make so much stuff up, Finn? Can't deal with what actually is being said????

Quote:

What you and your confreres actually mean is that you want to have important issues decided by a tiny, elite band of Judges who agree with you.

I mean what I actually wrote...and none of this made up crap was in there.

I think important issues should be decided by the law.

Quote:

Should the Supreme Court veer to the Right with the addition of Alito, oh how you will squeal about the power of five men to decide the fate of the country, just as many of you did when the SC's decision meant Bush beat Gore in 2000.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides will be just fine with me. Alito and Roberts seem like decent guys...but then again, so did Scalia. I hope they do not overturn Roe v. Wade...but if they do...it will be the law and I will respect it.

Quote:

If you are unable to articulate your position beyond a broad slogan, and insist on supporting it only with vitriol, so be it.

I really prefer not to take lessons on how to articulate my positions from someone who has as much trouble in that regard as you do...but I certainly thank you for attempting to do so. I do feel about it as I might if Karl Rove decided to lecture me on how to keep my body trim.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Freeduck,

Quote:
think this is the key disagreement. I say her rights DO trump the rights of the other life. Especially prior to viability, but even after, as long as it is using her body as a life support system.

How far do you wanna take that?
If a woman is breastfeeding,isnt that considered life support for the infant?
After all,it cant feed itself.
So,if she killed her baby then,would that be ok?
After all,it fits right in with what you said.

A woman can (and many do) terminate breast feeding without killing the infant. There is such a thing as formula. So breast feeding doesn't quite qualify as life support. It's more like food generation. The baby can survive without her breasts.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

What you and your confreres actually mean is that you want to have important issues decided by a tiny, elite band of Judges who agree with you.

well, the usa is a nation of law, isn't it ?

how many judges would you prefer ?

would you prefer that the judges were less than elite ? elite is bad ? is elite stil bad when people pronounce the special forces as "the elite soldiers of the military" ? after all, comparitively, special forces is a tiny group of the military.

Should the Supreme Court veer to the Right with the addition of Alito, oh how you will squeal about the power of five men to decide the fate of the country, just as many of you did when the SC's decision meant Bush beat Gore in 2000.

and should the sc veer to the right, it will be driven by "activist judges".i thought conservatives wanted "strict constructionists", not "activist judges".

or is it that it's okay to be an activist judge as long as you agree with there pov?

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

flushd wrote:
That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

Wrong, the day-after pill prevents fertilization. I just love how even people who know nothing want to take away our rights. 99% of the people who argue incessantly against abortion are men. Doesn't that tell you something?
These are men who haven't been able to control women in their day-to-day life so supporting abortion is one way they think they can gain control. For these men, as women continue to emerge out of years of male-imposed slavery, life is only going to get more frustrating. And God help you if Roe is ever overturned.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

mimilaura wrote:
How about ALL men over the age of 12 be required to have a vasectomy. That would eliminate the need for abortion.

What, no one has the right to make men have a vasectomy? But, many want women to have no
right to decisions about her body...

It would also spell the end of the human race.
Is that preferable?

There are currently many sperm banks. One donation of sperm can fertilize many eggs. Seems to me only one man's sperm donation is needed.

Can sperm be taken from a man who has had a vacentomy?

0 Replies

flushd wrote:

That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

"They" have determined that life ends when there is no brain wave activity.

When does a fetus begin brain wave activity?

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
flushd wrote:
That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

Wrong, the day-after pill prevents fertilization. I just love how even people who know nothing want to take away our rights. 99% of the people who argue incessantly against abortion are men. Doesn't that tell you something?
These are men who haven't been able to control women in their day-to-day life so supporting abortion is one way they think they can gain control. For these men, as women continue to emerge out of years of male-imposed slavery, life is only going to get more frustrating. And God help you if Roe is ever overturned.

GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!! You conveyed what I have been unable to write!

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
flushd wrote:
That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

Wrong, the day-after pill prevents fertilization. I just love how even people who know nothing want to take away our rights. 99% of the people who argue incessantly against abortion are men. Doesn't that tell you something?
These are men who haven't been able to control women in their day-to-day life so supporting abortion is one way they think they can gain control. For these men, as women continue to emerge out of years of male-imposed slavery, life is only going to get more frustrating. And God help you if Roe is ever overturned.

Uhh, I guess you haven't read my stance. I was just asked Finn a question. Relax.

And actually, the 'day-after' pill can be used for up to 7 days after sex, thus flushing away a fertilized egg. Just so you know. And it happens.

0 Replies

Not to be a stickler, but I'm pretty sure that the morning after pill only prevents implantation. So if, after 7 days, the fertilized egg has not yet implanted in the uterus, then it's possible that a fertilized egg gets flushed. That's the major difference between abortion and the morning after pill. If a person believes that life begins when an egg is fertilized, then I can see how you would think it was equivalent morally to abortion.

0 Replies

Ok, I checked this out, bc there is always the possibility that I made a mistake. I did make a few mistakes. My apologies.

The 'day-after' pill, otherwise known as emergency contraception, is taken in two doses within 72 hours of sex. It prevents pregnancy by stopping an egg from being released from the ovary and by stopping an egg from being fertilized, or reached by sperm. It also stops a fertilized egg from attaching, or implanting, itself to the wall of the uterus (or womb).

So, technically, an egg may be fertilized but unable to attach itself. I knew I wasn't crazy!

I was also a bit confused bc of a thing called the 'abortion pill'. Turns out, this is Mifeprex (mifepristone) and it works AFTER a woman becomes pregnant - AFTER a fertilized egg attaches to the wall of the uterus. The pills cause the uterus to expel the egg, ending the pregnancy.

Good to know. Sorry folks.

0 Replies

mimilaura wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
flushd wrote:
That's interesting to me, Finn.

There is no clear line at all.

To me, the day-after pill is equivalent to abortion (morally speaking). It aborts a fertilized egg.

Wrong, the day-after pill prevents fertilization. I just love how even people who know nothing want to take away our rights. 99% of the people who argue incessantly against abortion are men. Doesn't that tell you something?
These are men who haven't been able to control women in their day-to-day life so supporting abortion is one way they think they can gain control. For these men, as women continue to emerge out of years of male-imposed slavery, life is only going to get more frustrating. And God help you if Roe is ever overturned.

GREAT REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!! You conveyed what I have been unable to write!

It might be a great reply if you don't mind that it is mostly wrong. Do you honestly believe that 99% of prolifers are men--would you say that is true even of those posting on this thread?. Also the morning after pill may prevent fertilization but more often it prevents a the fertilized egg from implanting itself.

I consider the ethics of this, and can understand how some object to it, but I lean toward the idea that the morning after pill is probably way preferable to an abortion. If we consider that the bulb contains a flower; the acorn a mighty oak; the fertizlied chicken egg a chick, etc., none of this is realized unless the acorn and bulb are planted with sufficient light and water to sprout, or the egg is properly incubated.

Once the bulb pushes a shoot above the ground, however, we no longer call it a bulb but it is a tulip. When the first appearance of the sapling appears, it is no longer an acorn, but we call it an oak tree. And once the chick begins to form within the egg, every farmer calls it an incubating chick,not an egg.

Understanding this, it is not too much of a stretch to understand how so many, male and female, know that the forming being within the womb is not just a clump of cells. It is a human baby.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It might be a great reply if you don't mind that it is mostly wrong.

Something foxfyre might consider in her own posts.

Quote:

I consider the ethics of this, and can understand how some object to it, but I lean toward the idea that the morning after pill is probably way preferable to an abortion. If we consider that the bulb contains a flower; the acorn a mighty oak; the fertizlied chicken egg a chick, etc., none of this is realized unless the acorn and bulb are planted with sufficient light and water to sprout, or the egg is properly incubated.

Once the bulb pushes a shoot above the ground, however, we no longer call it a bulb but it is a tulip.

Yes we do.

Quote:

When the first appearance of the sapling appears, it is no longer an acorn, but we call it an oak tree.

Actually, we call it a sapling...but why quibble. It is an oak tree.

Quote:

And once the chick begins to form within the egg, every farmer calls it an incubating chick,not an egg.

Hand a fertilized egg to anyone...except perhaps you...and ask what it is...and they will respond: It is an egg.

But thanks for trying to stretch things that far. I needed a good laugh this morning.

Quote:

Understanding this, it is not too much of a stretch to understand how so many, male and female, know that the forming being within the womb is not just a clump of cells. It is a human baby.

For a good deal of the time, it is merely a clump of undifferentiated cells...and nothing more. It won't be a baby until it is born. But the sactimoneous hypocrites who want to take away a woman's right to control her own body will never acknowledge that...in my opinion, mostly out of dread of their idiot god.

0 Replies

Quote:

Hand a fertilized egg to anyone...except perhaps you...and ask what it is...and they will respond: It is an egg.

Hand a sprouted sapling to most people, and they won't know it's an oak tree. Unless s/he knows exactly where it was planted, only an experienced gardener can identify that early green shoot as a tulip. And farmers who raise chickens are quite clear on the difference between a fertilized egg and an incubating chick while the city person might not make the distinction.

But some people are so gung ho to justify denying life to the unborn, they do their damndest to sanitize that by calling the growing baby just about anything other than a human being. The shame is that while the uninformed can be forgiven for not being able to identify a very young tulip or oak tree or might not think about an incubating chick within the eggshell, the pro-abortionist knows better.

Nobody is more concerned with women's right than I am and I have devoted a good deal of my life working to achieve rights, protections, and opportunities for women. But I also am concerned with the nurture, protection, and opportunities for children too. And those who see something wrong with that or try to make it into some sinister thing can just go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:
Hand a fertilized egg to anyone...except perhaps you...and ask what it is...and they will respond: It is an egg.

Hand a sprouted sapling to most people, and they won't know it's an oak tree. Unless s/he knows exactly where it was planted, only an experienced gardener can identify that early green shoot as a tulip. And farmers who raise chickens are quite clear on the difference between a fertilized egg and an incubating chick while the city person might not make the distinction.

But some people are so gung ho to justify denying life to the unborn, they do their damndest to sanitize that by calling the growing baby just about anything other than a human being.

Actually...some people are so gung ho to deny women basic rights like the right to contol their own bodies...that they are willing to contort and twist logic...and impose their silly "beliefs"...in their efforts to do so.

Luckily, most Americans realize the nuts have to be kept at bay.

Quote:

The shame is that while the uninformed can be forgiven for not being able to identify a very young tulip or oak tree or might not think about an incubating chick within the eggshell, the pro-abortionist knows better.

Almost none of the pro-choice people I know are pro-abortion. They simply are willing to have the common decency to stay out of personal decisions of this magnitude...something the people on the anti-choice side are unable to muster.

Nobody is more concerned with women's right than I am and I have devoted a good deal of my life working to achieve rights, protections, and opportunities for women. But I also am concerned with the nurture, protection, and opportunities for children too. And those who see something wrong with that or try to make it into some sinister thing can just go take a flying leap as far as I'm concerned.[/quote]

0 Replies

Quote:

Almost none of the pro-choice people I know are pro-abortion. They simply are willing to have the common decency to stay out of personal decisions of this magnitude...something the people on the anti-choice side are unable to muster.

Exactly- In fact, when I was a lot younger, where this issue made any difference to me personally, I had decided that if I were ever in that position, that an abortion would not be right, for ME. I would never dream of telling another woman what to do.

0 Replies

I am pro-choice...but I want the choice to be for life,not death.

IMHO,once the fetus has a heart beat,and measurable brain activity,it is a life,not a " clump of undifferentiated cells."

Therefore,it deserves to live,and not be killed.

But,thats my opinion,and I cant and wont force that on anyone else.

0 Replies

And that's the rub, isn't it? Forcing others to conform.

I don't agree or disagree with Abortion per se, but as a non-child bearing person, I don't really have the authority to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know