The Morning After...

[Shattered]

**looks around**

 

[Markainion]

Sorry, it can't exist outside the womb...It's not a living being.

What about premature babies that need medical assistance to survive at first and then later grow up mostly normal if not perfectly healthy humans.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yet it is still alive. I was referring to infants which cannot survive outside the womb yet have a heart beat. Your assertion they're not alive is intellectually dishonest and downright evil.

I fail to agree with your view, thus I am evil. This discussion is about a fertilized egg which has yet to implant in the uterus, yet you turn it into a fetus with a heartbeat. Your own intellectual dishonesty is showing.

And if in utero, it is not an "infant", it is a fetus.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I fail to agree with your view, thus I am evil. This discussion is about a fertilized egg which has yet to implant in the uterus, yet you turn it into a fetus with a heartbeat. Your own intellectual dishonesty is showing.

And if in utero, it is not an "infant", it is a fetus.

No. You're evil because you deny human life where it obviously exists.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Yes, deemed unconstitutional through a misreading of the constitution. Admit it. Your unwillingness to be honest on this issue will keep you in the usmb doghouse in perpetuity.

If you read Roe v. Wade, it states the following:

<blockquote>For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. </blockquote>

This is when the vast majority of abortions occur...early in the first trimester when a woman first finds that she is pregnant. Emergency contraception, available over-the-counter and taken within 72 hours of intercourse would drastically reduce the number of such abortions. In fact, 88% of legal abortions occur within the first 12 weeks with only 1.5% after 20 weeks.(<i>Source:</i> <a href=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml>Planned Parenthood</a>)

Roe v. Wade goes on to state that:

<blockquote> For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.</blockquote>

In other words, after the first trimester, the state may regulate abortions and limit them to abortions performed where the health of the mother would be at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term, or in cases of rape and incest. And I have no problem with this so long as the issues which may delay a first trimester abortion are taken into account.

Key to preventing unwanted pregnancies is solid, fact based sex-education, understanding and availability of contraception and fast, reliable access to emergency contraception in the event of the failure of the primary means of contraception or failure to use contraception.

Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is little different than preventing fertilization of the egg through the use of condoms or spermicides. There is no rational basis to prevent the over-the counter sales of emergency contraceptives such as Plan-B.

 

[Bullypulpit]

No. You're evil because you deny human life where it obviously exists.

Your arguments against emergency contraception are meritless so you resort to these puerile attacks. Dismissed.

 

[pegwinn]

A few questions from an ignorant Texan.

First: Since when is contraception an emergency? Honestly it sounds like it should be called "Oh my god what the hell did I do?" conception.

Second: Am I the only one who clearly sees this as just a less invasive form of abortion? Maybe I missed it in the posts as the arguments heated up about RvW (again). I did see the abject dismissal at the beginning of page one. I summarily dismissed it as well.

 

[Bullypulpit]

A few questions from an ignorant Texan.

First: Since when is contraception an emergency? Honestly it sounds like it should be called "Oh my god what the hell did I do?" conception.

Second: Am I the only one who clearly sees this as just a less invasive form of abortion? Maybe I missed it in the posts as the arguments heated up about RvW (again). I did see the abject dismissal at the beginning of page one. I summarily dismissed it as well.

As was stated in an earlier post by Mr. P, where there is no pregnancy...there is no abortion. And, regular contraception does fail on a regular basis so a means must be available to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and possible abortion later on.

As for your self-admitted ignorance...Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

 

[pegwinn]

As was stated in an earlier post by Mr. P, where there is no pregnancy...there is no abortion. And, regular contraception does fail on a regular basis so a means must be available to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and possible abortion later on.

As for your self-admitted ignorance...Admitting you have a problem is the first step on the road to recovery.

Seems the point of contraception is to prevent the process. This pill sounds like something taking place after the fact. Ergo, aborting the process.

I also have other problems, like I tend to punch out dummies who insult me when I am attempting to join a discussion in a civilized manner.

 

[Mr. P]

Seems the point of contraception is to prevent the process. This pill sounds like something taking place after the fact. Ergo, aborting the process.

....

Which is exactly what a condom does most of the time..right? This pill prevents a pregnancy. Same thing.

 

[pegwinn]

Which is exactly what a condom does most of the time..right? This pill prevents a pregnancy. Same thing.

Traditional birth control pills "prevent" contraception just like condoms. As I understand it this pill is taken after the fact. If the chain of events leading to pregnancy is broken, isn't that a medicinal aborting of the process?

Believe it or not, I am not looking to fight someone. Unless I am missing something, this process is designed as a last ditch effort to terminate a pregnancy after the act. There is no preventative here.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Traditional birth control pills "prevent" contraception just like condoms. As I understand it this pill is taken after the fact. If the chain of events leading to pregnancy is broken, isn't that a medicinal aborting of the process?

Believe it or not, I am not looking to fight someone. Unless I am missing something, this process is designed as a last ditch effort to terminate a pregnancy after the act. There is no preventative here.

Some 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterus naturally, is this "aborting" the process...No. Birth control pills prevent ovulation...Does this constitute "aborting" the process? No. But 10% to 20% of women taking hormone based contraceptives still become pregnant. Do condoms or other barrier methods "abort" the process? No. But they do fail in all too many instances.

The logic you are following in asserting that emergency contraception is somehow "aborting" a pregnancy would also imply that contraception, in general, is aborting the process. And that is just what the most extreme elements of the so called "right-to-life" community would have us believe.

Where there is no pregnancy, there is no abortion.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your arguments against emergency contraception are meritless so you resort to these puerile attacks. Dismissed.

If you were rational, you would realize the statement below is the only piece of the article I criticized.

Their claim that life begins at conception has no scientific or rational merit and may be dismissed.

Dead things don't grow and increase cell mass and complexity until they're full blown humans. Ergo, IT'S ALIVE.

 

[Bullypulpit]

If you were rational, you would realize the statement below is the only piece of the article I criticized.




Dead things don't grow and increase cell mass and complexity until they're full blown humans. Ergo, IT'S ALIVE.

A fertilized egg is an undifferentiated mass of cells, not a living entity. It only has the potential to become a living entity which may or may not be realized, but it is not a living entity.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

A fertilized egg is an undifferentiated mass of cells, not a living entity. It only has the potential to become a living entity which may or may not be realized, but it is not a living entity.

It IS living. Dead things don't grow. You're not really this dense; you've just been brainwashed. Throw off the yoke of leftist correctness and think for yourself for once.

 

[Bullypulpit]

It IS living. Dead things don't grow. You're not really this dense; you've just been brainwashed. Throw off the yoke of leftist correctness and think for yourself for once.

I could make a similar argument that you've drunk too deeply of the right-wing kool-aid. And the definition of life is still fought out by minds far better than ours.

And while a fertilized egg has the potential for producing life, until it has implanted in the uterus it cannot express that potential. If it fails to implant, there is no human life lost.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I could make a similar argument that you've drunk too deeply of the right-wing kool-aid. And the definition of life is still fought out by minds far better than ours.

And while a fertilized egg has the potential for producing life, until it has implanted in the uterus it cannot express that potential. If it fails to implant, there is no human life lost.

Nope, it is life. It is a life avoided.

 

[5stringJeff]

I can see the arguments on both sides of this one. Tough call.

 

[no1tovote4]

A fertilized egg is an undifferentiated mass of cells, not a living entity. It only has the potential to become a living entity which may or may not be realized, but it is not a living entity.

You would be hard-pressed to prove it is not alive. Better to argue that it is not yet a "person" as there is no thought yet. However even that loses in value when many are born microcephalic, never to obtain rational thought, yet they are still a person. Life itself has value, and especially developing human life. Deeming one life to be of less value than another simply because of their level of development is only argued by those who wish to end that life in order to continue in their own life without the inconvenience of that young developing human. Ending another's life for convenience can only be argued by the most selfish, and defining them as less valuable according only to their level of development is only a way to make one feel better about killing their own progeny.

 

[no1tovote4]

If you read Roe v. Wade, it states the following:

<blockquote>For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. </blockquote>

This is when the vast majority of abortions occur...early in the first trimester when a woman first finds that she is pregnant. Emergency contraception, available over-the-counter and taken within 72 hours of intercourse would drastically reduce the number of such abortions. In fact, 88% of legal abortions occur within the first 12 weeks with only 1.5% after 20 weeks.(<i>Source:</i> <a href=http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-abortion-first-trimestert.xml>Planned Parenthood</a>)

Roe v. Wade goes on to state that:

<blockquote> For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.</blockquote>

In other words, after the first trimester, the state may regulate abortions and limit them to abortions performed where the health of the mother would be at risk if the pregnancy is carried to term, or in cases of rape and incest. And I have no problem with this so long as the issues which may delay a first trimester abortion are taken into account.

Key to preventing unwanted pregnancies is solid, fact based sex-education, understanding and availability of contraception and fast, reliable access to emergency contraception in the event of the failure of the primary means of contraception or failure to use contraception.

Preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus is little different than preventing fertilization of the egg through the use of condoms or spermicides. There is no rational basis to prevent the over-the counter sales of emergency contraceptives such as Plan-B.

All of this ignores the Doe V. Bolton ruling that was announced at the same time as Roe V. Wade that allows abortion at all times until birth as a "right". This made it so that States could not regulate abortion as seen fit after the first trimester except in cases where the mother's life was at stake.