Doctor recalls abortions before Roe v. Wade

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not sure how you reconcile that with your stated opinion that abortion should be illegal.

The morning after pill and an abortion are two completely different things. The morning after pill is nothing more than an increased dosage of birth control. Its function is to trick the woman's body into thinking she has already ovulated so as to prevent ovulation which in turn prevents fertilization. It does not terminate a pregnancy. The drug is ineffective post-implantation.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that does nothing to changes the morals or values behind it.

Of couser not, but exactly what is conisder ethical or not is not agreed upon entirely. If it were not debated, there would be widespread agreement as there is with murder.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by 7960

please stop trying to short circuit the discussion by claiming things that aren't true..........it's only a red herring if the example isn't applicable. this example is applicable.

I don't think it is.

[A_C_E]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The morning after pill and an abortion are two completely different things. The morning after pill is nothing more than an increased dosage of birth control. Its function is to trick the woman's body into thinking she has already ovulated so as to prevent ovulation which in turn prevents fertilization. It does not terminate a pregnancy. The drug is ineffective post-implantation.

That's entirely dependent on how you define a pregnancy.

Some pro-lifers think that, from the moment of fertilization, it's "life" and must be protected.

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that does nothing to changes the morals or values behind it.

you're right.

and so, morals and values considered, abortion being legal is the right way to be.

wow, that was easy!

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by A_C_E

That's entirely dependent on how you define a pregnancy.

Some pro-lifers think that, from the moment of fertilization, it's "life" and must be protected.

Fair enough, but does anyone actually give any credence to those that consider pregnancy to start before implantation?

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Fair enough, but does anyone actually give any credence to those that consider pregnancy to start before implantation?

Considering the people who believe that are the strongest (and most numerous, afaik) proponents of the pro-life movement, I'd say so.

If you don't consider life to begin at conception, then you've already ceded a major point -- that the fetus at the very earliest stages of development is not worth protecting, and if you don't believe that the debate then becomes about when it is worth protecting, and the most rational arguments are at viability or later trimesters.

It's like that old story about Churchill:

There is a great story about Winston Churchill. At a dinner party one night, a drunk Churchill asked an attractive woman whether she would sleep with him for a million pounds. “Maybe,” the woman said coyly. “Would you sleep with me for one pound?” Churchill then asked. “Of course not, what kind of woman do you think I am?” the woman responded indignantly. “Madam, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are,” said Churchill, “now we’re just negotiating the price.”

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

If you don't consider life to begin at conception,

Let's just hold the phone right there. The very word that is being questioned is "conception." Pregnancy begins at "conception." So is "conception" the point of fertilization? Or is it the point of implantation? That's precisely what is being asked.

You're completely missing the point if you're dismissing the debate as, "Well one side doesn't think pregnancy begins at conception."


If anyone thinks that pregnancy (or life) does not begin at conception, then they're unequivocally wrong. The question being asked here is, "What is conception?"

[motivez]

WordNet Search - 3.0

the act of becoming pregnant; fertilization of an ovum by a spermatozoon

edit:

Actually,

define:conception - Google Search

Pretty much every definition is similar to that.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

This is a gross misunderstanding of the, "She can do with her body as she pleases," argument. It's not that the fetus is part of the woman's body. It's that the woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases, including the right to decide if her nutrients ought to go toward the development of another human being. The fetus, whether it has rights or not, is effectively posing a direct threat to the woman's survival if it stealing the sustenance required in order for her to survive. Thus it is obvious that she ought to have the right to break free from her assailant (the fetus). As it just so happens, the fetus perishes as an end result.

Does an individual on life support (fetus) have a right to be on life support? Or does the hospital (woman) have a right to do with its medical equipment (her body) as it pleases?

Is a hospital allowed to pull the plug on someone that has a 99% chance of being able to survive without life support in 8 months?

I don't know the answer to this in all honesty, but I suspect very strongly that the answer is no, because that would be murder.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

WordNet Search - 3.0



edit:

Actually,

define:conception - Google Search

Pretty much every definition is similar to that.

Actually, it's about half and half. And to drive my point home (that there is debate), Webster's Medical Dictionary dodges the distinction all together by qualifying its definition with "fertilization or implantation or both." That said, let's also note that just about every Ob/Gyn acknowledges conception as beginning at implantation.

The biggest problem that I see with the antiquated, "begins at fertilization," definition, is that fertilization does not necessarily lead to the woman conceiving anything. Hybrid fertilization does not yield successful implantation except in extremely rare occasions (e.g., ligers and mules). Ought we acknowledge a woman as being pregnant with a centaur if her egg was fertilized by a horse, despite the fact that the resulting zygote would not be viable in the slightest? I should think not.

Anyway, the correct definition is irrelevant. I was pointing out that there is a controversy regarding what "conception" is, and you're the one that is arguing that there is not. Obviously you're mistaken. There is a debate, and it's a rather heated one.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Is a hospital allowed to pull the plug on someone that has a 99% chance of being able to survive without life support in 8 months?

Irrelevant to the discussion, really. The more proper (and relevant) question would be: Ought the hospital have the right to pull a patient off of life support under the same scenario? I certainly think so.

I suppose I should have worded my original question in the same "ought" manner, rather than questioning what "is."

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Fair enough, but does anyone actually give any credence to those that consider pregnancy to start before implantation?

for pro-life, life begins at CONCEPTION. as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's alive and doing anything to kill it is wrong.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by 7960

for pro-life, life begins at CONCEPTION. as soon as the sperm and egg meet it's alive and doing anything to kill it is wrong.

Are you suggesting that to a pro-choicer, pregnancy/life do not begin at conception? Then at what point do they begin?

Sigh...

Again, "conception" is the term that is being debated. The word you're looking for is "fertilization."

You and motivez, read:

Previously, pregnancy was defined in terms of conception. However, in the absence of an accurate understanding of human development, early notions about the timing and process of conception were often vague. For example, Webster's Dictionary defined "pregnant" (or "pregnancy") as "having conceived" (or "the state of a female who has conceived"), in its 1828 and 1913 editions.

Both the 1828 and 1913 editions of Webster's Dictionary said that to "conceive" meant "to begin the formation of the embryo." It was only in 1875 that Oskar Hertwig discovered that fertilization includes the penetration of a spermatozoon into an ovum. Thus, the term "conception" was in use long before the details of fertilization were discovered. By 1966, a more precise meaning of the word "conception" could be found in common-use dictionaries: the formation of a viable zygote.

In 1959, Dr. Bent Boving suggested that the word "conception" should be associated with the process of implantation instead of fertilization. Some thought was given to possible societal consequences, as evidenced by Boving's statement that "the social advantage of being considered to prevent conception rather than to destroy an established pregnancy could depend on something so simple as a prudent habit of speech." In 1965, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) adopted Boving’s definition: "conception is the implantation of a fertilized ovum."

The 1965 ACOG definition was imprecise because, by the time it implants, the zygote is called a blastocyst, so it was clarified in 1972 to "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst." Some dictionaries continue to use the definition of conception as the formation of a viable zygote.

Pregnancy is always defined as beginning at the point of conception. The debate is over what "conception" is. Here in America, the consensus is that conception is defined by the point of implantation (not fertilization). The reason for defining it by the point of implantation is viability. Read my response to motivez above if you want my take on that.

[motivez]

You're talking about a medical consensus rather than what the pro-lifers believe.. which isn't really germane to this discussion.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

You're talking about a medical consensus rather than what the pro-lifers believe.. which isn't really germane to this discussion.

You seem to have lost track of what was being discussed.

A_C_E: Some pro-lifers think that, from the moment of fertilization, it's "life" and must be protected.

Me: Fair enough, but does anyone actually give any credence to those that consider pregnancy to start before implantation?


So yes, I fully acknowledge that some members of the "pro-life" camp consider pregnancy to begin at fertilization. My question was: Does anyone actually lend any credence to their arguments?

Let's also note that there isn't a pregnancy test in existence (OTC nor prescription or medical examination) that can detect a pregnancy before implantation, which means that there aren't any abortions happening before that point. There is no reason for a pro-lifer to nut up about it.

[motivez]

No, you're bringing in a completely separate group than who we're talking about to justify your position (in opposition of my statement questioning lew's ability to reconcile his contradicting opinions) that conception isn't defined as the moment of fertilization, when for the majority of pro-lifers, it is.

[motivez]

And like I said, if you believe it doesn't begin at fertilization, then you've already ceded a significant part of the pro-life argument, because then it becomes a debate about when it does become life.. if it's not automatic at the beginning of the process.

[motivez]

IAedit:

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

So yes, I fully acknowledge that some members of the "pro-life" camp consider pregnancy to begin at fertilization. My question was: Does anyone actually lend any credence to their arguments?

Let's also note that there isn't a pregnancy test