Touchy Subject - Birth Control, Abortion, and Prescriptions [Archive]

Jr_Bullit

12-17-2003, 09:16 AM

Hi Guys - Okay I know this is one of those political subjects that no one ever brings up Because it is so touchy...but I read the NY Times in the morning and there was a very very interesting article. I'm not going to paste it here, cuz I'm not sure that legally that's an okay thing (reprint permissions), but it's on the cover of the NYTimes so go look it up. :)

Basically the article is about the Morning After Pill...For those of you who don't know what it is, it's a pill women can take if they've had unprotected sex and have been lax on taking their regular birth control.

In four states, pharmasists are able to distribute the drug, currently, without a prescription. However, according to the report, only 14% of pharmacists are willing to to do this - plus, c'mon now, what phrarmacy has the kind of privacy a young girl (and let's face it, that's the majority of those using this sucker) will want to request the pill.

However, the new law will allow the Morning After Pill to be purchased over the counter! :eek:. Now, supposedly there aren't many side-effects to the pill that would negatively affect a woman. However, there are concerns it could induce an abortion if the fetus has been in there long enough. A lot of concern that women will abuse the pill, and not take it according to regulation, and get hurt as a result. But, with a lot of over the counter drugs, misuse will lead to injury anyways.

I'm curious to know your thoughts on this. I really am walking a thin line, not sure entirely if I approve or disapprove of the idea. I know of one girl who took a version of the morning after pill while I was in college. She was extremely sick as a result, but again, that could have been a result of mis-use on her part.

I'm not sure I like the idea of making it easier for people to be irresponsible for their actions, but on the flip-side of the coin the number of unwanted pregnancies it "could" prevent maybe worth making it readily available. I've always been a pro-choice advocate, for my own reasons, but I'm not sure this even falls into the abortion debate (though it sure as heck comes awfully close). Technically, if used right, it's a preventative measure against pregnancy, not a measure to get rid of pregnancy once certain you are.

Anyways...open for debate now. :D

ummbikes

12-17-2003, 09:38 AM

I have done some research on this issue and the morning after pill is NOT the same thing as RU486(The abortion pill).

The morning after pill is a contraceptive which means pregnancy will not occur and therefore no abortion is needed.

It think that like any other drug there is the possibility for complications and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to know ahead of time whether or not it is an option for a particular individual.

Blah, blah, blah, my pastor says abstinance is the only sure fire way not to get preggers or sin, blah, blah, blah, people (teens) still knock boots, blah, blah, wear a condom guys, blah, blah, blah, ladies it's your body protect it from the evil sperm...

CRUM

12-17-2003, 09:58 AM

Judging by the huge numbers of humans on this planet, I'd say biology is stronger than faith and morals. And our "head in the sand" attitude regarding that biological certainty should really be called "our head up our a**" attitude. Morality stops at the bedroom door.

If a pill is available to stop the pregnancy from even getting out of the starting gate, why not? Seems to me both sides ought to be satisfied with this solution. What am I saying? Of course, both sides won't be happy. They never are. At least not at the same time anyway.

$tinkle

12-17-2003, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by ummbikes
I have done some research on this issue and the morning after pill is NOT the same thing as RU486(The abortion pill).

The morning after pill is a contraceptive which means pregnancy will not occur and therefore no abortion is needed.

It think that like any other drug there is the possibility for complications and maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to know ahead of time whether or not it is an option for a particular individual.

Blah, blah, blah, my pastor says abstinance is the only sure fire way not to get preggers or sin, blah, blah, blah, people (teens) still knock boots, blah, blah, wear a condom guys, blah, blah, blah, ladies it's your body protect it from the evil sperm... welllllll.....i kinda agree.

let me start with some blatantly partisan wording from the American Life League:How do emergency contraception/morning-after pills work?

The emergency contraceptive/morning-after pill has three possible ways in which it can work:
Ovulation is inhibited, meaning the egg will not be released
The normal menstrual cycle is altered, delaying ovulation
It can irritate the lining of the uterus so that if the first and second actions fail, and the woman does become pregnant, the tiny baby boy or girl will die before he or she can actually attach to the lining of the uterus.
In other words, if the third action occurs, her body rejects the tiny baby and he or she will die. This is called a chemical abortion.

Abortion is an act of direct killing that takes the life of a tiny human being-a life that begins at fertilization.
my opinion - which i certainly hope i will be able to defend using only facts (not passion) - is that since the dosage is a hyper-birth-control pill, it is a form of abortion pill. Stay with me on this. Yes, i do acknowledge this is being marketed as a pill which prevents a pregnancy, and is purported to block the insemination process. However, it may also prevent implantation.

Here's where i disagree with Nina Totenberg, who reported it on NPR yesterday. I believe that once the egg is fertilized, the woman is pregnant. It's clear that if it implants, then breaks free, it has miscarried. So, far, so good?

Three things reinforce my position on how we shouldn't be flippant with human life:
- Having good friends who can't get pregnant
- Raising a child
- Trying to figure out how someone can run out on a child (this happened to me)

For as strong as a position as i have on this topic, i am absolutely unwavered in that the gov't should stay out of the bedroom and not legislate morality. They should, however, legislate safe medicine, and certainly, this should not be wrecklessly/inconsistently be available for those whose use is "unintended". Imagine a cruel prank played by slipping a mickey to a hopeful mom. I know, that's pathological, but possible

ummbikes

12-17-2003, 10:33 AM

I have heard that the morning after pill could cause abortion if used in an "off label" application but it sounds like that isn' t the case per se.

I too have no desire to have the government involved in these matters but I too am a fan of life and highly encourage people to be responsible about family planning.

MMike

12-17-2003, 10:35 AM

My ex-girlfriend used to joke that the "morning after pill" was actually the size of a medicine ball that you drop on your mid-section...

LordOpie

12-17-2003, 10:50 AM

the primary reasons to make a drug available by prescription only is if the side effects are potentially dangerous or if there's an addictive quality.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like this pill doesn't fall into a category to make it prescription only.

Silver

12-17-2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by $tinkle
welllllll.....i kinda agree.

let me start with some blatantly partisan wording from the American Life League:
my opinion - which i certainly hope i will be able to defend using only facts (not passion) - is that since the dosage is a hyper-birth-control pill, it is a form of abortion pill. Stay with me on this. Yes, i do acknowledge this is being marketed as a pill which prevents a pregnancy, and is purported to block the insemination process. However, it may also prevent implantation.

Here's where i disagree with Nina Totenberg, who reported it on NPR yesterday. I believe that once the egg is fertilized, the woman is pregnant. It's clear that if it implants, then breaks free, it has miscarried. So, far, so good?

Three things reinforce my position on how we shouldn't be flippant with human life:
- Having good friends who can't get pregnant
- Raising a child
- Trying to figure out how someone can run out on a child (this happened to me)

For as strong as a position as i have on this topic, i am absolutely unwavered in that the gov't should stay out of the bedroom and not legislate morality. They should, however, legislate safe medicine, and certainly, this should not be wrecklessly/inconsistently be available for those whose use is "unintended". Imagine a cruel prank played by slipping a mickey to a hopeful mom. I know, that's pathological, but possible

Here is the problem with taking an issue in the black and white: There is no way a fertilized egg is a baby. While I agree that at some point during a pregnancy the fetus turns into a baby (no, I don't know where that point is) it sure as hell isn't before the fertilized egg implants into the uterus. If that's the case, there are unknown numbers of pregnant petri dishes around the world!

Your fears of someone "slipping a mickey" to a pregnant woman are pretty much alarmist as well. Hell, I can kill someone if I put rat poison in their food, but I can still buy that over the counter. Is your scenario possible? Yes, I guess it is. It is also possible that a piece of wing rips off a 747 flying overhead and kills the pregnant woman. You can't plan for everything.

golgiaparatus

12-17-2003, 11:04 AM

Personally I am a firm believer in 'a woman's body is her own', and she should ultimately have the right to do what she feels is best for her situation.

Also I dont have a problem with it being available over the counter (see above opinion). People will use it if they bewlieve it is right and people who think it is wrong... they wont.

However, Im sure the ever growing noses of the conservatives will poke their way into this issue somehow, bringing about lots of debate and controversy.

Jesus will also, no doubt, make an appearance.

DRB

12-17-2003, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by LordOpie
the primary reasons to make a drug available by prescription only is if the side effects are potentially dangerous or if there's an addictive quality.

I could be wrong, but it sounds like this pill doesn't fall into a category to make it prescription only.

What would it do to a woman that was say 2 or even 6 months pregnant? If all of a sudden it aborts/miscarries/murders (you chose) that's not necessarily a healthy thing that one should do at home if you can help it.

ummbikes

12-17-2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by DRB
What would it do to a woman that was say 2 or even 6 months pregnant? If all of a sudden it aborts/miscarries/murders (you chose) that's not necessarily a healthy thing that one should do at home if you can help it.

There are many things that can cause a pregnancy to fail. The morning after pill is just one.

Banning it's use would be like banning cars because they too have the potential to cause a woman to miscarry a pregnanacy.

$tinkle

12-17-2003, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Silver
Here is the problem with taking an issue in the black and white: There is no way a fertilized egg is a baby. While I agree that at some point during a pregnancy the fetus turns into a baby (no, I don't know where that point is) it sure as hell isn't before the fertilized egg implants into the uterus. If that's the case, there are unknown numbers of pregnant petri dishes around the world!yes, while the issue is certainly not b&w, my opinion is. I expect that most would be unwavered in their opinion. Agree that fertilized egg != baby, after all, the growth would be akin to the Thing of the Fantastic Four. I've been lurking at America's Debate (http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=c2723a3f685b2d0706830eb56f09193a&search_in=posts&result_type=topics&highlite=personhood) in the hopes of getting less dumb on the abortion topic. Only time will tell, eh? Some more interesting defenses for personhood (http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3660&st=15) can be found there as well. It's thick, but informative.
Originally posted by Silver
Your fears of someone "slipping a mickey" to a pregnant woman are pretty much alarmist as well. Hell, I can kill someone if I put rat poison in their food, but I can still buy that over the counter. Is your scenario possible? Yes, I guess it is. It is also possible that a piece of wing rips off a 747 flying overhead and kills the pregnant woman. You can't plan for everything. certainly; that's why i issued the pathological caveat.

for me, the bottom line is personal responsibility.

KFulch

12-17-2003, 11:29 AM

I would like to give my opinion; but I am not a woman nor am I in a situation that requires me to be 1/2 of a decision of this type.

:)

Sideways

12-17-2003, 08:06 PM

All of the above.
If the woman in question is not 100% confident of being able to raise a healthy (mentally and physically) child, then she by all means shouldn't be forced to, especially due to financial barriors to birth control.

Silver

12-17-2003, 09:06 PM

I'm going to pontificate on this a little more, sorry if it turns into a rant:

The problem with the abortion debate is extremists on both sides. On one side you have the DON'T MASTURBATE, IT'S GENOCIDE people, and on the other you have the UNTIL THE FETUS IS TOTALLY OUT OF THE WOMB IT'S JUST A CLUMP OF CELLS people.

Obviously, both sets of people are cranks. Abortions should not happen in the third trimester unless the mother is in physical danger from the pregnancy, and I can't imagine a sane woman ever wanting to do that. Abortion doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. I've never met anyone who used abortion as a primary form of birth control. If abortions were readily availiable and affordable, that wouldn't be an issue, but the cranks on the NO SEX side aren't letting that happen. Every sperm is sacred, remember?

Here is where it's going to turn into a bit of a rant:

If the anti-abortion folks were really serious about stopping abortions, don't you think they would be all for condom use and birth control and sex education? It's not about abortions for these people, it's about sex. They don't want sex happening unless it is missionary, and for the purpose of having children. They have no interest in preventing abortions, unless it prevents sex as well.

DRB

12-18-2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by ummbikes
There are many things that can cause a pregnancy to fail. The morning after pill is just one.

Banning it's use would be like banning cars because they too have the potential to cause a woman to miscarry a pregnanacy.

I didn't say ban. BUT should something like this be a non prescription medication. IF it can cause a woman to miscarry late into her term then I think there must be serious health implications with that.

llkoolkeg

12-18-2003, 08:59 AM

OTC? No. A woman's gyno should have to prescribe it. Like it or not, there is a potential for abuse whether it be guys "protecting themselves" or women not using it as directed.

Seeing my own child sucking her thumb, etc. before the completion of the 1st trimester made me believe that any killing of an otherwise viable pregnancy at such point and beyond is unquestionably infanticide. Things get more "debatable" as you move backwards towards conception, but I would never personally have any part of abortion even if my child was developmentally defective.

STD rates that had been on the decline will possibly blossom again by minimizing the consequences of rubberless boots-knocking.

Silver

12-18-2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
OTC? No. A woman's gyno should have to prescribe it. Like it or not, there is a potential for abuse whether it be guys "protecting themselves" or women not using it as directed.

Seeing my own child sucking her thumb, etc. before the completion of the 1st trimester made me believe that any killing of an otherwise viable pregnancy at such point and beyond is unquestionably infanticide. Things get more "debatable" as you move backwards towards conception, but I would never personally have any part of abortion even if my child was developmentally defective.

STD rates that had been on the decline will possibly blossom again by minimizing the consequences of rubberless boots-knocking.

Rubberless boot-knocking is not something you have to worry about. People don't use this as primary birth control, at least not more than once if they have an ounce of intelligence. The side effects of the morning after pill are (to put it mildly) quite unpleasant.

brock

12-18-2003, 10:51 AM

As usual, we have a bunch of guys talking about what women should be able to do with their bodies.

The opposition is doing one of two things here (depending on which way they want to play it).

1. Saying they are looking out for everyone’s best interest. To which I call BS. They are looking to push a Pro-Life agenda. That’s all.

2. Protecting people from themselves. This is a pretty popular theme with the virtue-imposing crowd. Whether it is drugs, gambling, kinky sex, gay sex, etc. They presume to know what everyone will do and what the consequences are, therefore they know more about what is good for you then you do and feel the need “protect you from yourself”. Thanks but no thanks.

The idea that more people are going to go out and have unprotected sex knowing they can fall back on the morning after pill, in turn increasing the incidence of STD’s is pretty damn funny. Because the risk of DEATH is soooo worth it. Yeah right. Any moron that is having unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship is a complete idiot and the availability of this pill is not going to change that.

I am not woman, I am also incapable of getting someone pregnant so I have been hesitant to enter into this discussion but I just get annoyed with strange speculation and bizarre potential effects (guys protecting themselves) being used as fuel for debate.

It boils down to this, is it safe when used as directed for its intended purpose?

LordOpie

12-18-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by DRB
I didn't say ban. BUT should something like this be a non prescription medication. IF it can cause a woman to miscarry late into her term then I think there must be serious health implications with that.
Oh, you can't really argue that, cuz then you'd have to take sleeping pills off the market. Directions for use are just that.

DRB

12-18-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by LordOpie
Oh, you can't really argue that, cuz then you'd have to take sleeping pills off the market. Directions for use are just that.

Good point.

Just seems worse to me for some reason.

llkoolkeg

12-18-2003, 01:53 PM

As usual, we have a bunch of guys talking about what women should be able to do with their bodies.

Regurgitating the tired feminist line does not make you sensitive or a hero to women. We're not discussing what a woman do with her elbow, but with an innocent third party.

The opposition is doing one of two things here (depending on which way they want to play it).

"The opposition":rolleyes:

1. Saying they are looking out for everyone’s best interest. To which I call BS. They are looking to push a Pro-Life agenda. That’s all.

Call away, but that does not make it so.

2. Protecting people from themselves. This is a pretty popular theme with the virtue-imposing crowd. Whether it is drugs, gambling, kinky sex, gay sex, etc. They presume to know what everyone will do and what the consequences are, therefore they know more about what is good for you then you do and feel the need “protect you from yourself”. Thanks but no thanks.

I am no fan at all of intrusive, nannyistic governmental meddling. None of the things you listed(which I have no problem with) = making dead a 3rd party which otherwise would not be. Bad analogy.

The idea that more people are going to go out and have unprotected sex knowing they can fall back on the morning after pill, in turn increasing the incidence of STD’s is pretty damn funny. Because the risk of DEATH is soooo worth it. Yeah right. Any moron that is having unprotected sex outside of a monogamous relationship is a complete idiot and the availability of this pill is not going to change that.

What's so funny about it? I have had unprotected sex many times outside of a monogamous marriage. I happen to be choosy about where I stick my dick, though. Having standards and getting to know the girl before you bang her helps. Rubbers suck- that's a fact. I have had sex with a rubber less than a dozen times total; I frankly have more fun beating off. And the women I have known would rather date a guy, get to know him and then have unprotected monogamous sex then just go meet some loser in a bar and fvck him with a rubber. Maybe you just need to raise the level of your expectations.

I am not woman, I am also incapable of getting someone pregnant so I have been hesitant to enter into this discussion but I just get annoyed with strange speculation and bizarre potential effects (guys protecting themselves) being used as fuel for debate.

Are you seriously telling me that you believe guys are above putting something in a woman's drink(the effects of which could be confused with a hangover) to ensure that they father no children and have to pay child support, especially when it's easily available??? Guys will put ANYTHING in a woman's drink when it comes to getting laid- spanish fly, grain alcohol, roofies, etc. Where exactly do you live?

It boils down to this, is it safe when used as directed for its intended purpose?

Beats me. But people don't always use things for their intended purpose. That's why you find whip cream cannisters in parking lots and hear about crushing up and snorting Oxycontin. Why is everyone so interested in making the killing of human life as anonymous and convenient as possible? That's the greater question.

the law

12-18-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Are you seriously telling me that you believe guys are above putting something in a woman's drink(the effects of which could be confused with a hangover) to ensure that they father no children and have to pay child support, especially when it's easily available??? Guys will put ANYTHING in a woman's drink when it comes to getting laid- spanish fly, grain alcohol, roofies, etc. Where exactly do you live?
[/B]

Since I know more than one girl who took the pill, I can assure you that they do not (and nevger would) confuse it with a hangover!!!

the law

12-18-2003, 02:20 PM

The concern over misapplication of the morning after pill to terminate a pregnancy (as unlikely/impossible? as that may be) by the woman herself can not (and will not) be solved by making/keeping it a prescription drug alone. Women can (and have, albeit for other reasons) (and yes, I do have first hand knowledge) ask their friends to go to the doctor to get the pills (obviously, it also protects the woman from possible negative drug interactions, etc, but this is not the topic here). Since there is no way for the doctor to verify if the girl had had unprotected sex within x days prior, he will prescribe the pill! The intake is not supervised. Plus, the girl will ordinarily have to take it twice within 24 hours. Moreover, since the morning after pill is merely a really concentrated form of the birth control pill, you could probably make it yourself at home.

To cut this whole thing short, there are several reasons why you cann not prevent "abuse" of the morning after pill by making it a prescription only drug. However, there are substantial benefits to keeping/converting its status as an over the counter drug, most obviously preventing unwanted pregnancies (i.e. not terminating them!).

BurlyShirley

12-18-2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by brock
To which I call BS.

Someone called?

Ok, to myself (without kids and sexually active) this pill seems just about the same to me as Birth Control pills. Currently, abortions are already legal, and if someone wants to NOT have a kid after becoming pregnant...the option is already there. This pill simply prevents that a little more in my mind. There are plenty of options out there for people who dont want to have kids after becoming pregnant...and this isnt even a viable option because of health risks. Its about as viable as pushing your wife down the stairs. If someone's going to go that far, the kid wont be born anyway.

Jr_Bullit

12-18-2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by the law
Since I know more than one girl who took the pill, I can assure you that they do not (and nevger would) confuse it with a hangover!!!

Hear hear!!! :) None of the substances listed there could be "confused" with a hangover...nor would the ill intentions of the guy who 'slipped' them.

And, ehr, Illkoolkeg, in response to your entire post...all I can really say is well, gosh, I'm pro-choice for a whole heck of a lot of reasons. I've never had to make the choice (thank goodness), but I know women who have with and without their partner's knowledge. Most of them take care of things wihtout their partner's knowledge - I was raised with the old fashioned belief that women's business is women's business and men need not be inolved with the decisions made by women. ;)

But as for getting on my pedestal and really going into a pro-choice vs. life debate with you (because that will no doubt get VERY ugly) though for a good debate that doesn't turn into personal attacks...it could be fun. :p

brock

12-18-2003, 02:38 PM

Regurgitating the tired feminist line does not make you sensitive or a hero to women. We're not discussing what a woman do with her elbow, but with an innocent third party.

Lets’ see. Didn’t you say that I was wrong about pushing your Pro-Life Agenda? I’m not trying to be hero. I’m voicing my opinion.

"The opposition":rolleyes:

Yes the opposition. You know “the people opposed to it.” Sorry I’ll try and find a better word for “people who are opposed to something”

Call away, but that does not make it so.

I think you have made it quite clear that it is.

I am no fan at all of intrusive, nannyistic governmental meddling. None of the things you listed(which I have no problem with) = making dead a 3rd party which otherwise would not be. Bad analogy.

I see this as “intrusive, nannyistic governmental meddling”. The people opposed claim to know how society will react (new form of birth control, more unprotected sex, sipping it women’s drinks, etc). Therefore they need to save us from ourselves.

What's so funny about it? I have had unprotected sex many times outside of a monogamous marriage. I happen to be choosy about where I stick my dick, though. Having standards and getting to know the girl before you bang her helps. Rubbers suck- that's a fact. I have had sex with a rubber less than a dozen times total; I frankly have more fun beating off. And the women I have known would rather date a guy, get to know him and then have unprotected monogamous sex then just go meet some loser in a bar and fvck him with a rubber. Maybe you just need to raise the level of your expectations.

You lost me at “ I happen to be choosy about where I stick my dick, though.”. Fvcking hilarious man! Are you using “Your gut” to assess risk of STDs? Unless “getting to know the girl” involves reviewing some documentation verifying that she is HIV- you are being very careless with your life.

Are you seriously telling me that you believe guys are above putting something in a woman's drink (the effects of which could be confused with a hangover) to ensure that they father no children and have to pay child support, especially when it's easily available??? Guys will put ANYTHING in a woman's drink when it comes to getting laid- spanish fly, grain alcohol, roofies, etc. Where exactly do you live?

Seriously man. Pry yourself away from the TV. Please provide some real figures on how often guys are putting **** in women’s drinks to get laid.

Why is everyone so interested in making the killing of human life as anonymous and convenient as possible? That's the greater question.

More Pro-Life Rhetoric.

llkoolkeg

12-18-2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by the law
Since I know more than one girl who took the pill, I can assure you that they do not (and nevger would) confuse it with a hangover!!!

Under what circumstances did they take it? You know more than one? Funny that at age 33, I have only personally known one girl that had an abortion of any kind...well, make that two but one was an ectopic pregnancy. Obviously, I have met women who did have one and did not advertise the fact, but that's a different thread. Please note that I am not saying that this product should be banned; I am just saying that it should not be OTC.

If the side effects are that bad, why would a girl bang a stranger(or someone of questionable sexual history) during her fertile period w/o a condom? Is this a case of "he said he'd pull out but DIDN'T" and then the next day w/o even knowing she's pregnant, she runs to the store for a "just in case" pill? I guess I don't really understand why this product would even be useful...

BurlyShirley

12-18-2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by brock

More Pro-Life Rhetoric.

Im not a pro-lifer, but i wouldnt write that statement off as simple rhetoric. Its a pretty valid concern.

$tinkle

12-18-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
I've never had to make the choice (thank goodness), but I know women who have with and without their partner's knowledge. Most of them take care of things wihtout their partner's knowledge - I was raised with the old fashioned belief that women's business is women's business and men need not be inolved with the decisions made by women. ;)i'm truly sorry to read that your friends were forced to have non-consensual sex. I also was raised the old fashioned way, & therefore those guys should be physically (not chemically) castrated.

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
But as for getting on my pedestal and really going into a pro-choice vs. life debate with you (because that will no doubt get VERY ugly) though for a good debate that doesn't turn into personal attacks...it could be fun. :p i'm sure we agree that this is purely apart from any legislation or company policy; this is most assuredly a matter personal conviction, and hearts won't be won here, just explained.

Silver

12-18-2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Under what circumstances did they take it? You know more than one? Funny that at age 33, I have only personally known one girl that had an abortion of any kind...well, make that two but one was an ectopic pregnancy. Obviously, I have met women who did have one and did not advertise the fact, but that's a different thread. Please note that I am not saying that this product should be banned; I am just saying that it should not be OTC.

If the side effects are that bad, why would a girl bang a stranger(or someone of questionable sexual history) during her fertile period w/o a condom? Is this a case of "he said he'd pull out but DIDN'T" and then the next day w/o even knowing she's pregnant, she runs to the store for a "just in case" pill? I guess I don't really understand why this product would even be useful...

My wife used it. We had a condom break in the first week after birth control switched, so we were in the danger period.

I (obviously) didn't personally experience it, but the side effects basically looked to be bad period x10. She was NOT happy for a couple of days.

What's wrong with banging a stranger anyways....I don't care who you're fvcking, why does it matter so much to you?

Silver

12-18-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im not a pro-lifer, but i wouldnt write that statement off as simple rhetoric. Its a pretty valid concern.

Equating a fertilized egg to a fully formed human being? I'm flexible, but I can't stretch that far...

BurlyShirley

12-18-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Silver
Equating a fertilized egg to a fully formed human being? I'm flexible, but I can't stretch that far...

With me, its like this.

Once an egg is fertilized, its a human in the earliest stage. I wont be convinced otherwise. And like i said, I wouldnt want a partner of mine to have an abortion because of my personal feelings. However, i do not think im in the position to make the choice for everyone else. Simple as that. The whole term "pro-choice" is simple rhetoric. A play on words from "Pro-death" which would be more accurate, but not as humane soudning.

Jr_Bullit

12-18-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
If the side effects are that bad, why would a girl bang a stranger(or someone of questionable sexual history) during her fertile period w/o a condom? Is this a case of "he said he'd pull out but DIDN'T" and then the next day w/o even knowing she's pregnant, she runs to the store for a "just in case" pill? I guess I don't really understand why this product would even be useful...

I hate to point this out...but after life as a college resident advisor, as well as good friend to many women...human anatomy is kinda funny but it's actually really hard to tell if you're in your "fertile" period. I've read and heard a few opinions as to why humans, of all mammals, have hidden ovulation periods, but most say it evolved as a way to keep men around :). Since you don't know if a gal's ovulating or not, you don't stand as good a chance of knocking her up and being able to jet as soon as you're sure she's "with child."

So basically, yes, it's a just in case pill. :) Just in case she missed a day that month on her regular b/c stuff, or more than a day, just in case she was ovulating, just because it was unprotected, and etc etc. There's also many women out there who aren't on birth control. This would be a fairly expensive, yet perhaps useful way of preventing additional children for them.

llkoolkeg

12-18-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Silver
My wife used it. We had a condom break in the first week after birth control switched, so we were in the danger period.

I (obviously) didn't personally experience it, but the side effects basically looked to be bad period x10. She was NOT happy for a couple of days.

What's wrong with banging a stranger anyways....I don't care who you're fvcking, why does it matter so much to you?

Again, I'm not saying it should be banned. Your situation makes sense to me and if you all were adamant about not raising a child, the earlier a pregnancy is terminated, the better. Frankly, it's a hell of a lot more humane an option than RU-486 or a "normal" abortion. I'd be happy to discuss/debate this with you or Jr_B.

As for my buddy brock, I can see that I'm tilting at windmills with him. Anyone that knows anything whatsoever about me knows that I almost never watch TV, am fairly open-minded and could be most accurately pidgeonholed as a very liberal conservative. He's down with abortion and apparently views the termination of otherwise viable human life right up there with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We'll never see eye-to-eye on this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree before things get any uglier.

Jr_Bullit

12-18-2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by BurlySurly
With me, its like this.

The whole term "pro-choice" is simple rhetoric. A play on words from "Pro-death" which would be more accurate, but not as humane soudning.

Perhaps more accurate from the the standpoint of the egg...lol, but what I've never understood is the pro-life view's insistance that a woman should have the child even if the child is a danger to her own health...

i.e. if having the child kills the mom, why then must she have the child?

There are other arguments for the pro-choicers, such as, if the child was forced to come into this world in a home where the child would be beaten, damaged, hurt, or otherwise given a half life, and the mom knows it before the child is anything more than a a few cells sorta clumped together, why then force the mom to have a child that would then live a horrible life?

uh oh...I think I just crossed the line :) :p

the law

12-18-2003, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
Under what circumstances did they take it? You know more than one? Funny that at age 33, I have only personally known one girl that had an abortion of any kind...well, make that two but one was an ectopic pregnancy.

Well, for one, the morning after pill is not an abortion pill. It prevents pregnancy much like the birth-control pill. It is also only supposed to be taken within a few days after the unprotected sex took place.
Second, you certainly seem intent on questioning my integrity when you imply that based on your own experience (at 33 nonetheless) it seems incredulous that I may know more than one girl who has used the pill (actually you say abortion, but I assume that is a typo). While I am not willing to go into details and despite your own life experience, I can only assure you that use of the morning after pill is probably a bit more wide-spread than you think.

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
If the side effects are that bad, why would a girl bang a stranger(or someone of questionable sexual history) during her fertile period w/o a condom? Is this a case of "he said he'd pull out but DIDN'T" and then the next day w/o even knowing she's pregnant, she runs to the store for a "just in case" pill? I guess I don't really understand why this product would even be useful...

Well, I think that is lightly narrow-minded. While some use of the pill is certainly due to "mistakes" (maybe even alcohol induced) between strangers, there are reasons even you would probably admit are legitimate, for example failure of the condom (breakage, slippage, etc.) Nonetheless, mistakes can also happen among long-time partners (that sounds a tad bit too pc) who may not be ready for a kid.
Lastly, lets not overlook the positive aspects. After all, the use of the morning after pill means one less abortion, right? Isn't that what you want?

brock

12-18-2003, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg

We'll never see eye-to-eye on this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree before things get any uglier.

Agreed. Sorry if I came off as hostile.

llkoolkeg

12-19-2003, 09:00 AM

I am perhaps not as narrow-minded as you may think. I have a differing opinion based on differing life experience, differing upbringing, etc. I am asking questions and suggesting alternate possibilities because I am trying to understand how others think. There are very few beliefs I hold that I am not willing to reevaluate and consider new evidence on. I am not a "pro-lifer" any more than I am a Republican, a conservative, a hawk, a Jesus-Freak, a downhiller, or an asshole-extraordinaire. I don't join things usually and reject the notion that I should. As soon as you start allowing yourself to be labeled, you set loose a subtle process of thought policing, e.g. Republicans are ______ and this is our platform, our agenda, and how you should vote and think on almost any issue. I'm not suggesting, however, that this is some grand conspiracy or anything other than simple human nature.

Most people feel a need to huddle together for companionship, protection, a sense of belonging, an established identity or any of a host of other completely normal reasons. I do not. You may notice that sooner or later, I will piss off or offend every single person on this board as I do in person. I say what I believe to be true and call my friends on the carpet over their beliefs just as much as I do anyone else. Even though I am a lifetime member of the NRA(one of my few affiliations), I don't always vote for the candidate as suggested in every race because I may disagree with a given politician on other issues I collectively deem of greater importance than gun control. I don't know why I view tribalism with such a suspicious eye, but I find that it allows me to be more true to myself by minimalizing the unconscious pressures towards conformity exerted whenever you gather people together under any common banner.

What does this have to do with the abortion arguement? I simply cannot reconcile the concept of killing what would otherwise become a human baby. Yes, it is better that if it is to be done, that it be done as quickly as possible. Yes, this morning-after pill is better than an abortion. Yes, the chemical abortion a woman 1-month pregnant undergoes is better than the partial birth abortion of a 2nd trimester fetus. Yes, it is better that an abortion be performed than for a woman to leave her newborn swaddled in newspapers in a garbage bag and pitched into a dumpster. But when you are choosing the lesser of obvious evils, that does not change the fact(in my opinion) that ending a human life is wrong.

It is too bad that the medical profession sees fit to muddy the waters of this debate in order to serve its own agenda. Is it not oddly inconsistent that the AMA can argue that old people on life support should not be allowed to be euthanized because of their hippocratic(hypocritic) oath, yet somehow abortion docters should be allowed to freely practice their "art" because it's not really a baby afterall until it is actually born. What happened to the sanctity of human life? Could it be that old people on life support(and their insurance companies) have strong lobbies and can be bled dry of money while an unborn child has no nest egg and no real advocate other than the marginalized "lunatic-fringe" pro-lifers?

I know that I have biases on this issue. My wife was almost aborted, but instead, her mother(whose identity has been sealed in court documents) decided to carry her to term and then gave her up for adoption. My wife would like to meet her for no reason other than to thank her for taking personal responsibility for her "mistake" and taking the difficult decision that has allowed my wife to become a mother herself. Additionally, my wife had a very difficult pregnancy and almost lost our daughter on several occasions. Due to the multiple close-calls, my wife and I literally watched our daughter grow up in utero on sonograms. We saw first hand that a first trimester baby is not just a bloody clot to be discarded like a tampon. Just a few months ago, my wife was crying in my arms nightly because her doctors told her that she may very well not ever be able to get pregnant again due to her health tissues, all the while her friends were having babies of their own. And now, after great difficulty, my wife is again pregnant and having a very rough time due to the concurrent presence of a hemorragic cyst. She gets absolutely pitiful calls from her cousin all the time who is heartbroken over her inabililty to get pregnant with her husband. She would be absolutely thrilled to adopt a baby, but because of the baby shortage, her only option was to adopt from a former eastern bloc nation- an enormously expensive undertaking.

Anyhow, these are in a nutshell the reasons for why I feel the way I do on this topic. I feel better for having vented and hope I didn't offend anyone too much. If I didn't offend you, though, be warned- I will one day.

the law

12-19-2003, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I am perhaps not as narrow-minded as you may think.

....

Anyhow, these are in a nutshell the reasons for why I feel the way I do on this topic.

Nicely said. Wile I ultimately do not agree with your position, probably because of my own life experiences, I can at least appreciate your reasons behind it now.

LordOpie

12-19-2003, 12:41 PM

but because of the baby shortage
wait. Are you serious?

I know a gay couple that adopted an 8 yo boy. Granted, he's 8, but there are lots of kids out there.

ummbikes

12-19-2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by LordOpie
wait. Are you serious?

I know a gay couple that adopted an 8 yo boy. Granted, he's 8, but there are lots of kids out there.

It's more the percieved cost of adoption than an actual shortage of babies. Unless the prospective parent is looking for a newborn, same race, non-special needs child, then it can be harder.

LordOpie

12-19-2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's more the percieved cost of adoption than an actual shortage of babies. While I suspect you're right, I also know several people that have adopted from overseas, specifically Chinese baby girls. Now, isn't that far more expensive?

:confused: :monkey:

PS: Don't think me unsympathetic to people's various viewpoints and causes as my ex-wife and I had a miscarriage at 6 weeks after having tried for a couple of years. It wasn't a normal miscarriage tho, the baby didn't abort naturally so she had to go in for a D&C -- I'm sure those of you who know what I'm talking about have already cringed, but if you don't know, that's dialate and cleanse. I sat with my then wife holding her hand while the doctor did the procedure. The doctor put a sheet up so we couldn't see what he was doing, standard procedure I suspect. I made the mistake of seeing the doctor put my 6 week old baby in a container as he walked across the room.

We talked about adopting, but that was the beginning of the end of our marriage... a longer story that I may bore you with another time.

Andyman_1970

12-19-2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by the law
Nonetheless, mistakes can also happen among long-time partners (that sounds a tad bit too pc) who may not be ready for a kid.

I figure I'll stick my head in this discussion. I agree with ll's point of view, even the morning after pill is terminating a human life.

How sad is it that this is a morally viable option for people who are not "ready" to have children. How about adoption, when my wife and I were having "trouble" getting pregnant (not now she is 13 weeks along) we would have adopted a baby in a heartbeat.

ummbikes

12-19-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by LordOpie
While I suspect you're right, I also know several people that have adopted from overseas, specifically Chinese baby girls. Now, isn't that far more expensive?

:confused: :monkey:

[/SIZE]

Yes.

My prof. from last spring adopted a child and the cost was based on her and her husbands income. They made about 80K a year and by the time they deducted their costs they paid about a thousand dollars. There are charitys who will pay a lot of the costs incured also.

There is a great book called Pricing The Priceless child that breaks down the value American society places on children and it has much better stats than I can just rattle off from memory.

ummbikes

12-19-2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I agree with ll's point of view, even the morning after pill is terminating a human life.

Do you or LL or anyone have some data to back that up? If that is the case then all oral contraceptives terminate human life.

Interesting....

Time to Google this....

Andyman_1970

12-19-2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by LordOpie
PS: Don't think me unsympathetic to people's various viewpoints and causes as my ex-wife and I had a miscarriage at 6 weeks after having tried for a couple of years. It wasn't a normal miscarriage tho, the baby didn't abort naturally so she had to go in for a D&C -- I'm sure those of you who know what I'm talking about have already cringed, but if you don't know, that's dialate and cleanse. I sat with my then wife holding her hand while the doctor did the procedure. The doctor put a sheet up so we couldn't see what he was doing, standard procedure I suspect. I made the mistake of seeing the doctor put my 6 week old baby in a container as he walked across the room.

When my wife and I got pregnant earlier this year we had the same thing happen to us. She was 10 weeks along and went in for our first sonogram and it was SO cool to see the baby. You could see arms hands and feet, it looked like a little person..........but it was not to be. The baby's heart had stopped 2 weeks earlier. I also took my wife to the hospital for a D & C.

I'll add a little twist to this story. Rewind 16 years ago, my wife (who at the time was not my wife, we hadn't even met yet), was raped and got pregnant. Her family would have freaked knowing she was pregnant, even if it was a rape. She felt she had no option but to get an abortion. She traveled 3 hours to a big city abortion clinic, and had the abortion. I won't even share with you the stories of the women that were in there for their 3rd or 4th time. What was even worse was the lady that worked at the clinic told my wife as she was leaving, "don't worry honey, it gets easier the second time. You'll be in here again, I garuntee it." Now fast forward 16 years: My wife and I "tried" to get pregnant for 8 months (which doesn't seem long, but it did to us) and when we finally did we had a miscarriage (see above).

My point is, the one thing that stuck with my wife is that "did my abortion cause or was in anyway related to the misscarriage". The Dr's said "no" but there was still this sinking feeling the two were related. The only regret my wife has is that she would have had the baby when she was 18 and gave ut up for adoption, but in her situation no one presented that as an option. We focus so much on the physical aspects of getting an abortion, but there is a HUGE emotional impact that I think people do not take into consideration.

ohio

12-19-2003, 01:18 PM

*nudges 10ft pole with foot*

*thinks*

*runs*

$tinkle

12-19-2003, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by ummbikes
Do you or LL or anyone have some data to back that up? If that is the case then all oral contraceptives terminate human life.

Interesting....

Time to Google this.... alternatively, you could read this thread from the beginning (hint: "chemical abortion")

ummbikes

12-19-2003, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by $tinkle
alternatively, you could read this thread from the beginning (hint: "chemical abortion")

Hmm...

I'm looking for data, you know, medical trials, FDA reports, even information from pro-life groups...

If simple hormonal birth control pills are not in fact contraceptives and are in fact abortifacients there is some validity to the arguement Andy and llkoolkeg made.

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
I agree with ll's point of view, even the morning after pill is terminating a human life.

**Post Google thoughts**

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) says an IUD isn't an abortifacient. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2623730&dopt=Abstract)

The Iowa Right To Life Committee says they are. (http://www.irlc.org/medical/m_abortifacients.htm) they also list Depo Provara as an abortifacient.

This essay from some Harvard (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/healthnet/SAsia/suchana/0702/lingam.html) researcher is not advocating Depo Provera but not classing it with abortifacients.

I have been unable to find anything saying the morning after pill or something like ortho-tricycline are abortifacients but it may be out there.

From my little bit of looking it does seem like some birthcontrol devices which are supposed to halt ovulation (like Depo) may fail and then because of a secondary effect of the drug cause an aborted pregnancy.

All in all this topic really requires a lot of research and makes me glad I had a vasectomy.

$tinkle

12-19-2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by ummbikes
From my little bit of looking it does seem like some birthcontrol devices which are supposed to halt ovulation (like Depo) may fail and then because of a secondary effect of the drug cause an aborted pregnancy. yes, i believe that's the argument made by the pro-lifers

Originally posted by ummbikes
All in all this topic really requires a lot of research and makes me glad I had a vasectomy. me too :D

Damn True

12-19-2003, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by llkoolkeg
I am perhaps not as narrow-minded as you may think. I have a differing opinion based on differing life experience, differing upbringing, etc. I am asking questions and suggesting alternate possibilities because I am trying to understand how others think. There are very few beliefs I hold that I am not willing to reevaluate and consider new evidence on. I am not a "pro-lifer" any more than I am a Republican, a conservative, a hawk, a Jesus-Freak, a downhiller, or an asshole-extraordinaire. I don't join things usually and reject the notion that I should. As soon as you start allowing yourself to be labeled, you set loose a subtle process of thought policing, e.g. Republicans are ______ and this is our platform, our agenda, and how you should vote and think on almost any issue. I'm not suggesting, however, that this is some grand conspiracy or anything other than simple human nature.

Most people feel a need to huddle together for companionship, protection, a sense of belonging, an established identity or any of a host of other completely normal reasons. I do not. You may notice that sooner or later, I will piss off or offend every single person on this board as I do in person. I say what I believe to be true and call my friends on the carpet over their beliefs just as much as I do anyone else. Even though I am a lifetime member of the NRA(one of my few affiliations), I don't always vote for the candidate as suggested in every race because I may disagree with a given politician on other issues I collectively deem of greater importance than gun control. I don't know why I view tribalism with such a suspicious eye, but I find that it allows me to be more true to myself by minimalizing the unconscious pressures towards conformity exerted whenever you gather people together under any common banner.

What does this have to do with the abortion arguement? I simply cannot reconcile the concept of killing what would otherwise become a human baby. Yes, it is better that if it is to be done, that it be done as quickly as possible. Yes, this morning-after pill is better than an abortion. Yes, the chemical abortion a woman 1-month pregnant undergoes is better than the partial birth abortion of a 2nd trimester fetus. Yes, it is better that an abortion be performed than for a woman to leave her newborn swaddled in newspapers in a garbage bag and pitched into a dumpster. But when you are choosing the lesser of obvious evils, that does not change the fact(in my opinion) that ending a human life is wrong.

It is too bad that the medical profession sees fit to muddy the waters of this debate in order to serve its own agenda. Is it not oddly inconsistent that the AMA can argue that old people on life support should not be allowed to be euthanized because of their hippocratic(hypocritic) oath, yet somehow abortion docters should be allowed to freely practice their "art" because it's not really a baby afterall until it is actually born. What happened to the sanctity of human life? Could it be that old people on life support(and their insurance companies) have strong lobbies and can be bled dry of money while an unborn child has no nest egg and no real advocate other than the marginalized "lunatic-fringe" pro-lifers?

I know that I have biases on this issue. My wife was almost aborted, but instead, her mother(whose identity has been sealed in court documents) decided to carry her to term and then gave her up for adoption. My wife would like to meet her for no reason other than to thank her for taking personal responsibility for her "mistake" and taking the difficult decision that has allowed my wife to become a mother herself. Additionally, my wife had a very difficult pregnancy and almost lost our daughter on several occasions. Due to the multiple close-calls, my wife and I literally watched our daughter grow up in utero on sonograms. We saw first hand that a first trimester baby is not just a bloody clot to be discarded like a tampon. Just a few months ago, my wife was crying in my arms nightly because her doctors told her that she may very well not ever be able to get pregnant again due to her health tissues, all the while her friends were having babies of their own. And now, after great difficulty, my wife is again pregnant and having a very rough time due to the concurrent presence of a hemorragic cyst. She gets absolutely pitiful calls from her cousin all the time who is heartbroken over her inabililty to get pregnant with her husband. She would be absolutely thrilled to adopt a baby, but because of the baby shortage, her only option was to adopt from a former eastern bloc nation- an enormously expensive undertaking.

Anyhow, these are in a nutshell the reasons for why I feel the way I do on this topic. I feel better for having vented and hope I didn't offend anyone too much. If I didn't offend you, though, be warned- I will one day.

Brilliantly stated. $hit, I'm crying now.

Give your wife a hug from another, nearly aborted kid. Me.

LordOpie

12-19-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
What was even worse was the lady that worked at the clinic told my wife as she was leaving, "don't worry honey, it gets easier the second time. You'll be in here again, I garuntee it."
That is so friggin', what?, evil :(

Originally posted by Andyman_1970
My point is, the one thing that stuck with my wife is that "did my abortion cause or was in anyway related to the misscarriage". The Dr's said "no" but there was still this sinking feeling the two were related. The only regret my wife has is that she would have had the baby when she was 18 and gave ut up for adoption, but in her situation no one presented that as an option. We focus so much on the physical aspects of getting an abortion, but there is a HUGE emotional impact that I think people do not take into consideration.
The more abortions a woman has, the increased likelihood of problems later. One abortion at 18 yo tho is probably insignificant. I'm sorry for your wife and you went thru, but I hope she still does not think she was at fault for the miscarriage... tho everywoman blames themselves :(

And yes, the emotional impact is very unestimated.

To all: I hear what pro-lifers say, but there are lots of people who are pro-choice in general, but pro-life personally. I think the options should be there, but I would be :angry: and :mad: if I got a woman pregnant and she aborted.

DRB

12-19-2003, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by ohio
*nudges 10ft pole with foot*

*thinks*

*runs*

*Sees Ohio running*

*thinks*

*chases after him like he stole my beer*

Silver

12-20-2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by BurlySurly
With me, its like this.

Once an egg is fertilized, its a human in the earliest stage. I wont be convinced otherwise. And like i said, I wouldnt want a partner of mine to have an abortion because of my personal feelings. However, i do not think im in the position to make the choice for everyone else. Simple as that. The whole term "pro-choice" is simple rhetoric. A play on words from "Pro-death" which would be more accurate, but not as humane soudning.

Pro-life is the same play on words. Most pro-life people are not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion. 2 different things.

One question about your feelings about a fertilized egg. Why do you feel a fertilized egg is a human being? Gut instinct, or is there another reason?

BurlyShirley

12-20-2003, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by Silver
Pro-life is the same play on words. Most pro-life people are not "pro-life", they are anti-abortion. 2 different things.

One question about your feelings about a fertilized egg. Why do you feel a fertilized egg is a human being? Gut instinct, or is there another reason?

Anti-abortion = pro life
Pro-abortion = pro death

Pro choice = :confused: I have no clue. Its doublespeak, eh?

Ok, about the fertilized egg...i think its pretty much common sense. The male gene info enters the female egg, and voila...a baby begins to grow. I think i got that in 5th grade.

Silver

12-20-2003, 12:34 AM

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Anti-abortion = pro life
Pro-abortion = pro death

Pro choice = :confused: I have no clue. Its doublespeak, eh?

Ok, about the fertilized egg...i think its pretty much common sense. The male gene info enters the female egg, and voila...a baby begins to grow. I think i got that in 5th grade.

Common sense is hardly common. Most fertilized eggs don't result in a human being. A fertilized egg has no characteristics of a human being, and most importantly, in my opinion, there is no consciousness in a fertilized egg. Human beings are near (if they haven't already been) to being cloned. Does every single clonable cell that we kill amount to murder?

Personally, I think consciousness is where I would set the bar. Where does it start? It depends what you mean by consciousness...but if you take the The brain is obviously the place to start looking, and the study of consciousness is still stuck between the early discoveries of science and the hypotheses of philosphy. I'm not an expert, and finding links is difficult on google (bad signal to noise ratio) but it appears that most of the brain development that makes us human happens in the last trimester.

Pro-life is just as much doublespeak as pro-choice. Many pro-life people are for the death penalty, they don't mind killing animals for food, and they don't oppose all war.

Anti-abortion=anti-abortion
Pro-abortion=pro-abortion

Pro-life and pro-choice are essentially meaningless terms, as far as I am concerned.

Silver

12-20-2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by DRB
*Sees Ohio running*

*thinks*

*chases after him like he stole my beer*

Haha, reminds me of the South Park where Stan's grandpa wants Stan to kill him. Stan looks for advice from his teacher (I'm not touching that with a ten foot pole!), Chef (I'm not touching that with a twenty foot pole!), and he finally calls into Jesus and friends to get the verdict from the man himself.

His answer? "I'm not touching that with a thirty foot pole!"

LordOpie

12-20-2003, 12:43 AM

You can't fertilize a turd.

BurlyShirley

12-20-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by Silver

Pro-life is just as much doublespeak as pro-choice. Many pro-life people are for the death penalty, they don't mind killing animals for food, and they don't oppose all war.

Anti-abortion=anti-abortion
Pro-abortion=pro-abortion

Pro-life and pro-choice are essentially meaningless terms, as far as I am concerned.

Point taken on that.

I was simply pointing out that one can take the meaning of abortion, (which in this context to me means snuffing a fetus) and place an "anti" or a "pro" in front of it...nowhere can you construe it to mean anything about a "choice" . But i get what you mean.

Still though, on the fertilized egg deal, consciousness may be where you set the bar, but if i went around killing people while they were "unconscious" id still get charged with murder. Of course this is not what you mean, but its a hard thing to define as you said. Though all fertilized eggs do not end up as humans, altering that potential in an unnatural way IMO, is playing god. I am not anti-abortion, as i said, but it is still killing in the simplest form.