 |
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:23
|
|
Everyine's conception of birth is arbitrary. Pro-abortionists throw out birth all the time, but there is no physical or mental differance between a baby just born and its womb confined self the day before.
You all are not making a jubgement on any scientific or otherwise physical facts, you are making a judgememnt call no different than the religious people you ridicule.
And of course the fact that a large portion of that anti-abortion community do not oppose it for religious reasons means nothing too you. They of course are making the same arbitrary decision you are.
Last edited by Patroklos on 20-09-2004 at 20:17
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
What makes them the same?
|
They aren't really the same. The guns are better than these drugs.
In most cases, if you shoot someone you are not going to kill them unless you know what you are doing and where to shoot. In the case of abortifacient drugs, they are designed so that they will kill a child, without any detailed knowledge of how they work.
Secondly, while you can use a gun for purposes other than to kill a person, such as to hunt, who can hunt with an abortifacient drug?
The only purpose of the drug is to make sure that the baby dies. That's it.
quote:
Laws are in place that state a doctor has to tell the patient of any serious side effects of a drug they prescribe...
|
Then why are doctor's prescribing this drug which does have serious side-effects, yet does not have a medical benefit?
quote:
because the doctor and patient have already decided the possible serious side effects are out weighed by the advantage of taking he drug.
|
Here I thought the drug was available without a prescription. I know that there are people who have been pressing hard for this, which means that the only way people will ever hear about the side effects is from their pharmacist.
And I think that if they are made available without a prescription that the pharmacists should have the right to use their discretion whether or not to stock the drug. The drug does have serious side-effects, but unfortunately, politics seems to always trump medicine, and the welfare of the patient.
quote:
What a silly question.
The woman is taking the drug for a reason... she doesn't want the child. So it is indeed helping her.
That's the whole point of taking it.
|
So if I clubbed an unwanted infant to death I am helping the mother too? And here I thought you could come up with a medical benefit of the drug for mothers in their early pregnancy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Hmm ... does anyone know when conception takes place after intercourse? I imagine a lot depends on the position of the egg in the fallopian tube, motility of the sperm and so on. Twelve hours? Sixteen? Twenty-four? My point being that if the emergency drugs are administered in a timely fashion, it might prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.
|
That's hard to do because it is not the mechanism of these drugs. What they do is harden the lining of the endometrium, so that the embryo, after fertilisation, travels down into the womb, and cannot implant in the uterus.
So these drugs are not designed to block the passage of sperm, as other barrier methods do to prevent contraception.
quote:
I don't believe a just-fertilized egg constitutes a human being. To me, that's belittling just what the soul is (a small mass of cells, three days old?!)
|
Some said the same about black people, that if they had a soul, it would cheapen God.
Yes, I know this is difficult to see, as it is so far removed from our everyday experience, but why should a smaller clump of cells be less of a person, than the larger mass that we are?
quote:
the soul and God are more intelligent than what some give them credit for.
|
Then like the garbageman in Dilbert, why would they see things the way we do?
quote:
I don't care if its genetically flawed,
|
So do you believe that those who have genetic flaws are less of a person than those who do not?
quote:
Using that logic, if anti-abortion laws worked, there'd be no back alley abortionists, would there?
|
Now, be careful. I did not say that no one would take this route. I said that the popularity of the method reflected the failure of the current approach of health education. Big difference.
Yes, I admit, no law is perfect. Laws against murder do not stop all murder. Neither will laws against abortion stop all abortions.
As for how, even back in the bad old days, most of the abortions done were being performed safely, as they were done by competent physicians. Why should we expect butchers now when we have much better technology?
quote:
Furthermore, you call it "popular." I disagree, considering the fact that the number of legal abortions in this country has actually declined from its high.
|
Do such counts measure the number of people partaking of emergency 'contraception'?
quote:
What it comes down to is this: There are 6.2 billion people on this planet, and it's nigh impossible to get them all to do "the right thing," all the time.
|
So then, it's okay for sex education to fail, because we all know it's hopeless? Why bother with it in the first place?
quote:
Yet history obviously shows that just saying "no" and using abstinence education doesn't work 100 percent, either.
|
Yes, but such education has been shown to be more effective than other forms that tell you to use a condom everytime.
quote:
Therefore, you need to expose people to *all* aspects of sex education — abstinence, STDs, the stages of pregnancy and childbirth, contraception options and so on. That way, they not only know the best way to avoid pregnancy, but also what options they have if pregnancy occurs.
|
Actually, best to tell people to wait, and if you can't wait, to stay with one partner, and if you can't do either of the first steps, then you have them use a condom. That is if your goal is to reduce these problems rather than increase them.
Giving them options, isn't going to help them when you really don't want them having to use these options in the first place.
quote:
I did include men in my statement. Go back and look.
|
Yes, but you did not say that they ought to always stay by the women they get pregnant. You said that 'if they wish to be involved'.
That tells me that it is an option for the man to choose not to be involved, which is another way of saying that the woman does not have that option, and to place the primary burden on the woman.
The responsibility should be shared.
quote:
Not the man. It's rare for me to ever hear anything about the responsibility the man has in the whole affair. It angers me. Perhaps that "Isn't she too young?" campaign should go nationwide, since a good deal of unwanted pregnancies are caused by older men having their way with teenage girls.
|
Do you think the pro choicers are the ones pushing for the involvement of men, when they tell the man that regardless of his wishes, his partner can have an abortion?
The only ones who are saying that the men should be accountable, and responsible along with the women are the prolifers. For everyone else, it's not a man's issue, it's not a man's problem.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
Laz
I consider myself Pro-Life
but I would still allow abortion in that case (of course, if she could get one in the first trimester, but than waits for no good reason, I might not allow her to get one)
most abortions come about because the woman doesn't want the responsibility or the like
if it is actually life versus life, than that is a different issue (And it is one that doctors have to make all the time)
(my understanding is that we have a 30/0 and 70/100, even though it seems the 70/100 is better, I would allow the woman to get an abortion, especially if it was pre-third trimester)
to me the worse bit of abortion, is where they kill the Baby inside, because if they just brought it out, it would live
the rest of the argument comes about when life begins, and I think that scientifically the most reasonable result is for ~when brainwaves start, which is roughly arround the time of the end of the first trimester, which is roughly the time period I would be ok with allowing abortion at
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:23
|
|
quote:
Uhhhh... pregnancy IS a medical condition
|
No, it is not. The problems arise from pre-existing conditions apart from pregnancy.
For a healthy woman, pregnancy has many proven medical benefits, just one of them being a reduction in the risk of breast cancer.
quote:
And last... you base many of your straw man arguments on your belief that a fetus is a living person with rights... A point that is still open to much debate.
|
And your points are based in the opposite position, that the fetus is not a person, and are just as open to debate.
quote:
When exactly is a fetus a living person with rights in the eyes of the law/court... I think your "opinion" runs counter to what the law of the land is.
|
Was this always so, Ming? If so, then does that mean laws that previously banned abortion were valid?
And I believe the unborn child to be a person, because I cannot see a division between the unborn child in the womb and the infant that comes forth from the womb. The two are one being, just in different stages of development.
So why should we have one law for one age, and another law for a different age? It makes no sense to me.
The laws of the land, or the US, since Canada has no such abortion law, are all based on premises that fall apart if you consider the unborn child to be a person. One does not have a right to beat their children in private, so why would they have a right to kill their child in the womb?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
about brain waves starting?
it is actually not a set date, but it is arround the first trimester mark
I haven't looked it up in a while, but I did once
I would recommend you do the same
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-09-2004 11:09
Ectopic pregnancies are the only case that would qualify, and abortion is necessary because neither mother nor baby will survive if nothing is done. 
|