Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Probably just me not understanding the mechanism of the pill.AFAIK the MAP is an abortifacient.According to Chuz Life and other zealots, it's human at the moment of conception. Doesn't that mean that the morning after pill is murder too? Wouldn't drugs to prevent the fertilized egg from implanting into the uterus be murder? IUD's = murder? Douching = murder?
From my understanding and the way the MAP is marketed. It prevents conception, not implantation.
Is that not the case?
Are you suggesting that planned parenthood might actually be lying?
Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.Part of the issue with abortion and empathy is I put myself in the shoes of the pregnant woman and her rights regarding abortion. Being forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is horrendous. In an early abortion the the embryo has no consciousness or brain waves even.Of course not.Does empathy end with due process then?
You see it as a constitutional issue giving an unborn child the same rights as anyone else, but that opens the door to a nightmare for every pregnant woman. I see it as competing rights with the woman's rights being paramount until the fetus is sufficiently developed to live outside her body. Late term abortions are rare, very regulated and usually for serious reasons and I support that.
If you follow the constitutional argument you can not make exceptions for anything but the mother's life. That creates a slippery slope for every pregnant woman.
Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
Late term abortions are already strictly regulated and in most states, it's not elective.Maybe it's time for Abortion and Gun laws legislation to be tied together to neutralize the extremists on both sides. The "right" to stick pile mass weapons and certain types of weapons as well as the "right" to have late-term abortions could be addressed together forcing Washington to compromise. The problem is that neither side believes they have extremists.
Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Probably just me not understanding the mechanism of the pill.AFAIK the MAP is an abortifacient.From my understanding and the way the MAP is marketed. It prevents conception, not implantation.
Is that not the case?
Are you suggesting that planned parenthood might actually be lying?
Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
Part of the issue with abortion and empathy is I put myself in the shoes of the pregnant woman and her rights regarding abortion. Being forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is horrendous. In an early abortion the the embryo has no consciousness or brain waves even.Of course not.Does empathy end with due process then?
You see it as a constitutional issue giving an unborn child the same rights as anyone else, but that opens the door to a nightmare for every pregnant woman. I see it as competing rights with the woman's rights being paramount until the fetus is sufficiently developed to live outside her body. Late term abortions are rare, very regulated and usually for serious reasons and I support that.
If you follow the constitutional argument you can not make exceptions for anything but the mother's life. That creates a slippery slope for every pregnant woman.
Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
And you are wrong. It is far easier to make emotional arguments in favor of the unborn child. Look at how easily and often the woman is demonized here.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
If a persons Constitutional rights begin at conception...the impact on a woman's rights is tremendous. The most effective means of contraception would be illegal. The only legal abortion would be if her life was in danger. She could potentially be liable for possible manslaughter. Could she be held culpable for birth defects? Her body becomes a vehicle to house a fetus from conception on. She loses her rights to it at that moment. Constitutional rights begin at birth. Children after birth still do not enjoy the full range of rights that adults do. No one should have rights to another persons body against that persons will.
Again, "If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?"
I digress.
No. The only way I would have any "right" to another's body is by express consent.Part of the issue with abortion and empathy is I put myself in the shoes of the pregnant woman and her rights regarding abortion. Being forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is horrendous. In an early abortion the the embryo has no consciousness or brain waves even.Of course not.Does empathy end with due process then?
You see it as a constitutional issue giving an unborn child the same rights as anyone else, but that opens the door to a nightmare for every pregnant woman. I see it as competing rights with the woman's rights being paramount until the fetus is sufficiently developed to live outside her body. Late term abortions are rare, very regulated and usually for serious reasons and I support that.
If you follow the constitutional argument you can not make exceptions for anything but the mother's life. That creates a slippery slope for every pregnant woman.
Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?
Of course, I know better than to expect a direct answer to that question. I don't know why I even try.
And you are wrong. It is far easier to make emotional arguments in favor of the unborn child. Look at how easily and often the woman is demonized here.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
If a persons Constitutional rights begin at conception...the impact on a woman's rights is tremendous. The most effective means of contraception would be illegal. The only legal abortion would be if her life was in danger. She could potentially be liable for possible manslaughter. Could she be held culpable for birth defects? Her body becomes a vehicle to house a fetus from conception on. She loses her rights to it at that moment. Constitutional rights begin at birth. Children after birth still do not enjoy the full range of rights that adults do. No one should have rights to another persons body against that persons will.
Again, "If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?"
I digress.
No. The only way I would have any "right" to another's body is by express consent.Part of the issue with abortion and empathy is I put myself in the shoes of the pregnant woman and her rights regarding abortion. Being forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is horrendous. In an early abortion the the embryo has no consciousness or brain waves even.Of course not.
You see it as a constitutional issue giving an unborn child the same rights as anyone else, but that opens the door to a nightmare for every pregnant woman. I see it as competing rights with the woman's rights being paramount until the fetus is sufficiently developed to live outside her body. Late term abortions are rare, very regulated and usually for serious reasons and I support that.
If you follow the constitutional argument you can not make exceptions for anything but the mother's life. That creates a slippery slope for every pregnant woman.
Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?
Of course, I know better than to expect a direct answer to that question. I don't know why I even try.
And you are wrong. It is far easier to make emotional arguments in favor of the unborn child. Look at how easily and often the woman is demonized here.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
If a persons Constitutional rights begin at conception...the impact on a woman's rights is tremendous. The most effective means of contraception would be illegal. The only legal abortion would be if her life was in danger. She could potentially be liable for possible manslaughter. Could she be held culpable for birth defects? Her body becomes a vehicle to house a fetus from conception on. She loses her rights to it at that moment. Constitutional rights begin at birth. Children after birth still do not enjoy the full range of rights that adults do. No one should have rights to another persons body against that persons will.
Again, "If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?"
I digress.
Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Probably just me not understanding the mechanism of the pill.AFAIK the MAP is an abortifacient.
Are you suggesting that planned parenthood might actually be lying?
Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Probably just me not understanding the mechanism of the pill.Are you suggesting that planned parenthood might actually be lying?
Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Probably just me not understanding the mechanism of the pill.
Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?Yeah. I doubt that Planned Parenthood would lie about anything like that.
Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
The MAP works by preventing implantation. The abortifacient pill causes the uterus to contract and expell the lining which may have a fertilized egg implanted. So to clarify, which is OK and which is not OK? Or is neither OK?So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Considering that they already provide abortion services, what would they gain by lying about a pill?
Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
Quote where I ever said that if it prevents implantation, it's ok.
In fact, I recall saying the exact opposite of that.
The MAP works by preventing implantation. The abortifacient pill causes the uterus to contract and expell the lining which may have a fertilized egg implanted. So to clarify, which is OK and which is not OK? Or is neither OK?So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.Is the Morning after pill an abortifacient? Or not?
Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
Quote where I ever said that if it prevents implantation, it's ok.
In fact, I recall saying the exact opposite of that.
I doubt it. Seems to be a point without distinction anyway. Either way, it stops an unwanted pregnancy. Don't see why it matters to you either since your position is anything done post conception to prevent gestation and birth is bad (murder).The MAP works by preventing implantation. The abortifacient pill causes the uterus to contract and expell the lining which may have a fertilized egg implanted. So to clarify, which is OK and which is not OK? Or is neither OK?So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter? It's a magic pill that makes a big problem disappear.
Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
Quote where I ever said that if it prevents implantation, it's ok.
In fact, I recall saying the exact opposite of that.
Short memory?
We covered this already.
Planned Parenthood says the Morning After Pill does not prevent implantation.
Are they lying?
Having sex is not consenting to pregnancy.No. The only way I would have any "right" to another's body is by express consent.Part of the issue with abortion and empathy is I put myself in the shoes of the pregnant woman and her rights regarding abortion. Being forced to carry a pregnancy against her will is horrendous. In an early abortion the the embryo has no consciousness or brain waves even.
You see it as a constitutional issue giving an unborn child the same rights as anyone else, but that opens the door to a nightmare for every pregnant woman. I see it as competing rights with the woman's rights being paramount until the fetus is sufficiently developed to live outside her body. Late term abortions are rare, very regulated and usually for serious reasons and I support that.
If you follow the constitutional argument you can not make exceptions for anything but the mother's life. That creates a slippery slope for every pregnant woman.
Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?
Of course, I know better than to expect a direct answer to that question. I don't know why I even try.
And you are wrong. It is far easier to make emotional arguments in favor of the unborn child. Look at how easily and often the woman is demonized here.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
If a persons Constitutional rights begin at conception...the impact on a woman's rights is tremendous. The most effective means of contraception would be illegal. The only legal abortion would be if her life was in danger. She could potentially be liable for possible manslaughter. Could she be held culpable for birth defects? Her body becomes a vehicle to house a fetus from conception on. She loses her rights to it at that moment. Constitutional rights begin at birth. Children after birth still do not enjoy the full range of rights that adults do. No one should have rights to another persons body against that persons will.
Again, "If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?"
I digress.
LOL
If physically connecting your body to the body of another is NOT an expression of consent then what the fuck is it?
I doubt it. Seems to be a point without distinction anyway. Either way, it stops an unwanted pregnancy. Don't see why it matters to you either since your position is anything done post conception to prevent gestation and birth is bad (murder).The MAP works by preventing implantation. The abortifacient pill causes the uterus to contract and expell the lining which may have a fertilized egg implanted. So to clarify, which is OK and which is not OK? Or is neither OK?So if the pill prevents implantation it's OK, but if it causes the uterine lining to contract and empty it's "unjust"? Either way no baby.Does it matter that it might unjustly kill a child?
Yeah.
I think that matters a lot.
Quote where I ever said that if it prevents implantation, it's ok.
In fact, I recall saying the exact opposite of that.
Short memory?
We covered this already.
Planned Parenthood says the Morning After Pill does not prevent implantation.
Are they lying?
Having sex is not consenting to pregnancy.No. The only way I would have any "right" to another's body is by express consent.Were I to base my position on abortion on empathy alone, you might have an excellent point. There is little doubt that the emotional arguments are easier made in favor of the woman than for the child she is carrying. However, in my view, none of that has any bearing on a legal / constitutional debate about when a persons Constitutional rights begin.
All of this pap about women's rights verses the rights of her child is crap too. . . Because there is not a woman alive who wasn't first a child, herself.
As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?
Of course, I know better than to expect a direct answer to that question. I don't know why I even try.
And you are wrong. It is far easier to make emotional arguments in favor of the unborn child. Look at how easily and often the woman is demonized here.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
Again, "If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?"
I digress.
LOL
If physically connecting your body to the body of another is NOT an expression of consent then what the fuck is it?
When you drive a car are you consenting to kill some one?Having sex is not consenting to pregnancy.No. The only way I would have any "right" to another's body is by express consent.As I pointed out, my position is not based on empathy alone either but on a person's right to his or her own body, no one else has a right to it.
If someone grabbed you at a time when you were completely unaware and they managed to connect YOUR body to their own in such a way that you would DIE if that connection were broken at any time prior to ac 9 Month time period. . . Would you or would you not have a right to that person's body for the duration of that time?
Of course, I know better than to expect a direct answer to that question. I don't know why I even try.
I disagree. Its far easier to have empathy for someone who actually has feelings, possibly other kids, an abusive partner, money problems, etc. The only way to have empathy for a child in the womb is to essentially project your own feelings onto them and to try to imagine what the abortion would be like if they WERE able to be aware of the situation.
LOL
If physically connecting your body to the body of another is NOT an expression of consent then what the fuck is it?
Yes it is.
