Doctor recalls abortions before Roe v. Wade

[motivez]

The point of the question was to find whether or not lew thinks life begins at conception (or fertilization if you prefer), and if so, how can he be against the government from regulating a pill designed to "murder"?

If it sometimes happens before fertilization or implantation, fine, maybe those don't count. But the women who take those pills aren't going to know whether or not it's already happened or what stage they're in so early in the process, so if you believe it's murder, better safe than sorry

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

The point of the question was to find whether or not lew thinks life begins at conception (or fertilization if you prefer), and if so, how can he be against the government from regulating a pill designed to "murder"?

If it sometimes happens before fertilization or implantation, fine, maybe those don't count. But the women who take those pills aren't going to know whether or not it's already happened or what stage they're in so early in the process, so if you believe it's murder, better safe than sorry

Do you think it would be fair if we parallel (from a pro-lifer's perspective) this scenario by fast-forwarding a bit?

Suppose there was a drug that women could take after birth to help their bodies adjust more quickly. Now suppose that there is a very slim chance that the drug will cause breast milk to be fatal to the infant. Should the drug be illegal?

I would imagine that lew's answer would be something along the lines of, "No, it should be illegal to take the drug while breast feeding." Likewise, I would imagine that his answer to your question would be, "No, it should be illegal to take the drug post-fertilization." It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that the drug was taken post-fertilization in order to demonstrate that a crime has been committed.

[motivez]

The drug has no other benefits that I'm aware of, if it's only use is to murder someone else, why should it be legal?

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

The drug has no other benefits that I'm aware of,

That depends on what you consider a benefit. Perhaps you're unaware that the drug is also preventive (can be taken before intercourse to prevent fertilization), and many people consider that to be a benefit. Not only is it likely to stop a pregnancy if fertilization has occurred, but it will also prevent fertilization from occurring for the next 24hrs. It's both proactive and reactive. Again, it's just a heavy dose of birth control.

if it's only use is to murder someone else, why should it be legal?

Most pro-lifers have no qualms with birth control.

[motivez]

Like I said, the woman taking it isn't going to know what stage she's in. If you think it's murder, then...

[Kytro]

I believe that life begins at conception, primarily because it is the starting point of a seperate human life (though it isn't a person).

However, life isn't a good enough argument in my opinion to ban abortion.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

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

I really fucking hate it when people think there are only two options

Then at what point do they begin?

Sigh...

Thank god I've been drinking...I can answer this like I really want.

We're talking about when people give a shit. If you shoot your load in your whore of a girlfriend most people don't give a shit. If your sperm meets her egg THAT'S when people give a shit.

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

No. I knew exactly what word I wanted and I used the right word.

To PRO-LIFERS, conception/pregnancy/fertilization are all the same thing.

Both the 1828 and 1913 editions of Webster's Dictionary.....

You're taking out the dictionary? Really??

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.

No, that is not the consensus.

MEDICALLY conception might be implantation, but for PRO-LIFE people conception means "sperm + egg", period.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

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.

whether there's a test for it or not, pro-life people say "when sperm meets egg"

whether it implants or not isn't part of their discussion.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

The point of the question was to find whether or not lew thinks life begins at conception (or fertilization if you prefer), and if so, how can he be against the government from regulating a pill designed to "murder"?

If it sometimes happens before fertilization or implantation, fine, maybe those don't count. But the women who take those pills aren't going to know whether or not it's already happened or what stage they're in so early in the process, so if you believe it's murder, better safe than sorry

I do believe life begins at conception.

But I still don't want the government regulating an abortion pill, because I don't want them regulating any drug.

I also sort of view an abortion pill like a gun. Both are designed to kill people, and I don't like murder, but I also don't want either made illegal.

[motivez]

Guns have other purposes, self defense, hunting, etc.. an abortion pill is designed to do one thing, terminate the pregnancy.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

Guns have other purposes, self defense, hunting, etc.. an abortion pill is designed to do one thing, terminate the pregnancy.

And one more time: it is ALSO DESIGNED TO PREVENT PREGNANCY.

Plan B is not any different than birth control, except that it's double the dosage.


It's like saying that guns are only intended to murder people, despite the fact that they serve other functions. "Abortion pills" serve other functions as well.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

you're right.

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

wow, that was easy!

that may be your values, but that doesn't mean it is either the majority or right

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

And one more time: it is ALSO DESIGNED TO PREVENT PREGNANCY.

Plan B is not any different than birth control, except that it's double the dosage.


It's like saying that guns are only intended to murder people, despite the fact that they serve other functions. "Abortion pills" serve other functions as well.

If you think that ending a pregnancy after fertilization is murder, it's inherently different than other forms of contraception because it's used retroactively (after a potential fertilization) rather than before, ie: a condom or normal birth control.

I'm pretty sure there are religious groups who consider all forms of contraception morally wrong because they believe sex should only be for procreation. Should we be forced to submit to those views as well?

[thatguyoverthere]

Outlawing abortions won't stop abortions, that's the whole point of the article.
Rich women will go to another country, poor women will go to the back alley. Abortions will continue.

I too, am anti-abortion/pro-choice. So many anti-choice people are also gung-ho against any sort of sex education or condom distribution. It just doesn't make any sense. If you really want to help prevent unplanned pregnancies, you have to teach kids the facts and let then know about the preventative measures.

[7960]

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm pretty sure there are religious groups who consider all forms of contraception morally wrong ...

There are definitely religious groups that believe condoms are wrong. Ask one of them if a condom is on the same level as an abortion and I'm going to guess they'll say no.