Contraception v s abortion

Ellie2008 · 10-09-2015 4:21pm #1

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation. I read that the definition of pregnancy was changed by the medical profession when the pill came out in 1970s to implantation which seems like a v cynical move. How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion, does it seem like drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

Maximus Alexander · 10-09-2015 4:27pm

Now I'm no biology practicing guy, but my understanding is that the brain and other organs only begin to form after implantation, and I think it would be a pretty hard sell to convince a science talking guy that the cluster of stem cells or whatever that you have before that constitutes a human being.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 4:39pm

I would say, embryologically speaking, that the term "unborn child" is an accurate one. That's what it is, I've never read or heard an argument to convince me otherwise. Our choice is simply to decide which is the greater evil; to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term or to kill an unborn child.

Ellie2008 · 10-09-2015 4:41pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I would say, embryologically speaking, that the term "unborn child" is an accurate one. That's what it is, I've never read or heard an argument to convince me otherwise. Our choice is simply to decide which is the greater evil; to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term or to kill an unborn child.

So would you be anti the contraceptive pill and other similar products?

10-09-2015 4:41pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception,

So you have a problem with contraception?

The_Valeyard · 10-09-2015 4:42pm

Hold your ground! Hold your ground! Sons of Gondor... of Rohan... my brothers! I see in your eyes, the same fear that would take the heart of me! A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship... but it is not this day! An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the age of Men comes crashing down... but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear, on this good earth, I bid you STAND, MEN OF THE WEST!

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 4:43pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

So would you be anti the contraceptive pill and other similar products?

No. If conception is prevented or interrupted, there is no child. I'm not pro or against anything here.

Ellie2008 · 10-09-2015 4:46pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

No. If conception is prevented or interrupted, there is no child. I'm not pro or against anything here.

But the pill doesn't just prevent conception, if conception happens it prevents implantation therefore killing the embryo

sillysmiles · 10-09-2015 4:49pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

... I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation.

But you understand that contraception, in general, prevents conception.
The hormones in the pill prevent ovulation, thus preventing an egg so egg and sperm never meet.

pickarooney · 10-09-2015 4:50pm

Yes, it's a completely arbitrary distinction and anyone that tries to claim otherwise is simply fooling himself.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 4:50pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

But the pill doesn't just prevent conception, if conception happens it prevents implantation therefore killing the embryo

The difference there I guess is that the pill prevents the embryo implanting and starting to grown. Abortion kills the entity which started to develop when it implanted.

Ellie2008 · 10-09-2015 4:51pm

sillysmiles wrote: »

But you understand that contraception, in general, prevents conception.
The hormones in the pill prevent ovulation, thus preventing an egg so egg and sperm never meet.

What about the anti implantation effects of the pill and all similar products?

El_Duderino 09 · 10-09-2015 4:56pm

Ellie2008 wrote:

But the pill doesn't just prevent conception, if conception happens it prevents implantation therefore killing the embryo

Yes. We're a grown up species who is trying to take control of one of the most basic aspects of life - reproduction. That involves interrupting pregnancies. It's a generally good practice to control reproduction so I suggest you figure it out from a species perspective rather than worrying about ehether lumps of cells are alive or not.

Generic Dreadhead · 10-09-2015 5:04pm

This conversation is neither Social nor is it Fun

PARlance · 10-09-2015 5:06pm

Cormac... wrote: »

This conversation is neither Social nor is it Fun

I'm going to pull out.

endacl · 10-09-2015 5:09pm

Cormac... wrote: »

This conversation is neither Social nor is it Fun

On the other hand, it hasn't ever been discussed on boards before. Nor are there any active mega threads anywhere in the site where it could be discussed.

I predict reasoned and balance debate

Maximus Alexander · 10-09-2015 5:42pm

endacl wrote: »

On the other hand, it hasn't ever been discussed on boards before. Nor are there any active mega threads anywhere in the site where it could be discussed.

I predict reasoned and balance debate

No you're wrong.

Annasopra · 10-09-2015 5:43pm

What the fùçķ?

We're seriously doing a debate where someone is trying to compare the pill to abortion?

Seriously?

Cookie_Monster · 10-09-2015 5:44pm

and whats the difference between first trimester abortion and 43rd trimester too...

Annasopra · 10-09-2015 5:47pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and whats the difference between first trimester abortion and 43rd trimester too...

43rd Trimester?

Some baby for it to be an 11 year pregancy!!!

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 5:53pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Now I'm no biology practicing guy, but my understanding is that the brain and other organs only begin to form after implantation, and I think it would be a pretty hard sell to convince a science talking guy that the cluster of stem cells or whatever that you have before that constitutes a human being.

And do you think a "science talking guy" would be convinced that a recently implanted embryo is indisputably a human being in a way the unimplanted one isn't?

My understanding is that scientifically there is very little difference between the implanted embryo and the unimplanted one, at least in terms of how close both entities are to a newborn baby (ie not very close at all really).

rainbow kirby · 10-09-2015 6:01pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

What about the anti implantation effects of the pill and all similar products?

Still a lot better than ending up with an unwanted pregnancy.

No matter what your opinions are on abortion, to be against contraception is absolutely pants-on-head stupid.

zeffabelli · 10-09-2015 6:04pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Still a lot better than ending up with an unwanted pregnancy.

No matter what your opinions are on abortion, to be against contraception is absolutely pants-on-head stupid.

I think what she's saying is that some contraception like the Map and the coil can act as abortifacients if conception has already taken place so how does Ireland reconcile anti abortion laws with its current medical practises in terms of medication.

I'm sure the Irish answer would be, well it happens before we can know if someone is pregnant or not.

Maximus Alexander · 10-09-2015 6:05pm

volchitsa wrote: »

And do you think a "science talking guy" would be convinced that a recently implanted embryo is indisputably a human being in a way the unimplanted one isn't?

My understanding is that scientifically there is very little difference between the implanted embryo and the unimplanted one, at least in terms of how close both entities are to a newborn baby (ie not very close at all really).

I don't know, you'd have to ask some sort of medicine studying guy. I don't really feel like pretending to have expert knowledge of a subject that people devote many years of their lives to researching today.

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that a cluster of cells without a heart, or brain, or anything that resembles anything we would associate with a human being, as being any more deserving of special protection than a spermatozoon though.

One eyed Jack · 10-09-2015 6:10pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation. I read that the definition of pregnancy was changed by the medical profession when the pill came out in 1970s to implantation which seems like a v cynical move. How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion, does it seem like drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

That's because there is an arbitrary line between conception, fertilisation, and implantation. As medicine and science increase our knowledge of human development, those arbitrary lines will likely shift again and pregnancy will be redefined again.

There are some couples trying to redefine pregnancy as it is already, with their announcements that 'we're pregnant!'

What's up with that?

jjC123 · 10-09-2015 6:11pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation. I read that the definition of pregnancy was changed by the medical profession when the pill came out in 1970s to implantation which seems like a v cynical move. How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion, does it seem like drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

The medical and scientific community often differ in where life begins because the definition of 'life' is actually a tricky one. Technically bacteria is 'alive' as is your potted cactus. The follow on question is generally 'so where does consciousness begin? Where is the thing that makes us us and when does it develop?'
And this is the crux - no one really knows. Our knowledge of consciousness (the less scientifically inclined might all it a soul) and the human brain is far from complete. So there is no consensus on where life begins because it vastly depends on your interpretation of life.

eternal · 10-09-2015 6:12pm

Don't EVER have sex. EVER.

End of discussion.

acb121 · 10-09-2015 6:12pm

PLEASE.

A conceived embryo which is hours or days ( or a even few weeks ) into its development has no nerves and probably has no conciousness nor emotions.

An embryo which is several months old will have.

Current abortion limits in certain countries are indeed killing a viable child, and I dont like to think about it, being close to several people who were born severely prematurely and survived thanks to the miracles of modern science. Children are a miracle of life.

But hours, days, or several weeks are not viable, and they are a cluster of cells rather than a viable independent living organism.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 6:16pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't know, you'd have to ask some sort of medicine studying guy. I don't really feel like pretending to have expert knowledge of a subject that people devote many years of their lives to researching today.

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that a cluster of cells without a heart, or brain, or anything that resembles anything we would associate with a human being, as being any more deserving of special protection than a spermatozoon though.

Yeah but no-one disagrees with that (on here anyway) so are you saying that immediately after implantation it does constitute a human being?

Maximus Alexander · 10-09-2015 6:23pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah but no-one disagrees with that (on here anyway) so are you saying that immediately after implantation it does constitute a human being?

I don't even think I said anything that could be misconstrued as that? Indeed, I don't think I could have been much less definitive about anything I said while still posting at all.

If you're looking for an argument about minutiae, I think you have chosen the wrong mark.

Penny Tration · 10-09-2015 6:28pm

acb121 wrote: »

Children are a miracle of life.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Miracle of life to those who want them. Also known as mistakes, accidents, horrific consequences of rape, and so on.

The latter, I agree with.

NachoBusiness · 10-09-2015 6:35pm

eternal wrote: »

Don't EVER have sex. EVER.

End of discussion.

But what if..

eternal · 10-09-2015 6:48pm

NachoBusiness wrote: »

But what if..

Hahahaha.
Only in America ffs

acb121 · 10-09-2015 6:49pm

Penny Tration wrote: »

Miracle of life to those who want them. Also known as mistakes, accidents, horrific consequences of rape, and so on.

The latter, I agree with.

Yes, I appreciate that, some of your sentiments.

But we are digressing. Nevertheless:

I had the absolute privilege to see a child born. Probably the most amazing experience of my life. I'm not religious, but I thank god, whoever he is, that I was privileged with that life experience.

Children are innocent little beings without any pre-concieved or indoctrinated opinions or attitudes and I adore them.

Were I to be an unfortunate woman who had given birth to a mistake, accident or even a child of rape, I could not blame that child for that. I'd still give them the love they need and deserve.

Anybody who has witnessed the birth of a child and spent time with that child in its most early and vunerable moments of life would not judge them on whether they are wanted or not. They are innocent and blameless.

But I have gone way off topic.

WHICH TO BE FRANK IS ONE OF THE MOST RIDICULOUS THINGS I HAVE EVER READ ON HERE !

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2015 7:00pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion

Actually I have heard some outcry about this from people strongly against such abortive pills. They just tend to be a minority group, shrill, and not very convincing or articulate. So I would not agree there is "no outcry". Just not a very relevant one.

suicide_circus wrote: »

I would say, embryologically speaking, that the term "unborn child" is an accurate one. That's what it is, I've never read or heard an argument to convince me otherwise.

It is also a Banana. If you contrive to tailor your definition of "Banana" to fit it. So yea the term "unborn child" will indeed fit if you cherry pick a definition that makes it fit.

The question however should not be whether some emotive or arbitrarily contrived label or term fits or not, but whether the definition behind that term is one that usefully argues for or against the morality of abortion.

Alas what many anti abortion campaigners will do is cherry pick emotive terms and tailor them to fit, and then act like they have an argument. They will tell us the fetus is "Human" or a "Person" or an "Unborn child" and they will hope that the terms will operate in place of any actual coherent argument on the subject.

I think it is a dishonest and exactly backwards approach that they engage in. A more honest approach is to start from the bottom up, rather than the top down by throwing labels around and arguing from them.

Essentially the honest approach would be to define exactly what it requires for us to afford any entity "rights" or to be a subject of our moral concerns. And then work out what stage, if any, during the developmental process the fetus attains, or is likely to have attained, those attributes.

Certainly for me I see no moral or ethical argument what.so.ever. to afford moral concerns or human rights to a fetus at, say, 16 weeks of development. Perhaps some day someone will enlighten me with some. I wait agog.

The Randy Riverbeast · 10-09-2015 7:03pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't know, you'd have to ask some sort of medicine studying guy. I don't really feel like pretending to have expert knowledge of a subject that people devote many years of their lives to researching today.

You'll have to hand in your boards card with that attitude. I'll give you another chance. Find 2 scientific discoveries in areas you know nothing about and explain how they are wrong. If anyone attempts to counter your arguments with facts or reason claim it is your opinion and they are trying to silence the truth. I expect this to be done by this time next week.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I find it hard to reconcile the idea that a cluster of cells without a heart, or brain, or anything that resembles anything we would associate with a human being, as being any more deserving of special protection than a spermatozoon though.

I dont really get the whole implantation thing myself. Sure it will develop into something but by just implanting it hasn't changed or at least not by much. Helps get around the treatment of embryos I suppose.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2015 7:07pm

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I dont really get the whole implantation thing myself. Sure it will develop into something but by just implanting it hasn't changed or at least not by much.

Yeah there is, as you clearly suspect here, not much to "get". It is simply that we as humans like to have neat little lines to draw in the sand where we can comfortably say "This side good, that side bad". So a lot of people will arbitrarily pick an easily identifiable point in the human life cycle and draw a line there in the sand to make their opinion on abortion effortless.

To me it is simply intellectually lazy and a cop out. It allows people to arbitrarily stick a pin in the entire complex process and not think about it any deeper than that.

Conception, implantation, they are all relatively easy to identify and talk about. So they attract the lazy thinker to draw their line there. But there is no useful or intellectually rigorous reason to do so, especially for a topic this important to many people, born and unborn.

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 7:08pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't even think I said anything that could be misconstrued as that? Indeed, I don't think I could have been much less definitive about anything I said while still posting at all.

If you're looking for an argument about minutiae, I think you have chosen the wrong mark.

How is it "minutiae" to point out that you appear to be saying that the minute implantation occurs, the baby springs, fully formed, into existence.

And if you're not implying that, then what exactly are you saying? Because it's really not clear. Asking someone to clarify their point is hardly "arguing minutiae" either. Is it?

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 7:57pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Alas what many anti abortion campaigners will do is cherry pick emotive terms and tailor them to fit, and then act like they have an argument. They will tell us the fetus is "Human" or a "Person" or an "Unborn child" and they will hope that the terms will operate in place of any actual coherent argument on the subject.

To suggest that emotive argument and cherry picking are the exclusive domain of "anti choice" campaigners is hypocritical. I'm in a third camp i think...in that I believe it to be an unborn child and also that women should have the right to abort it under certain conditions. I'm not prepared to force a woman to have a baby.

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 8:15pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

To suggest that emotive argument and cherry picking are the exclusive domain of "anti choice" campaigners is hypocritical. I'm in a third camp i think...in that I believe it to be an unborn child and also that women should have the right to abort it under certain conditions. I'm not prepared to force a woman to have a baby.

And do you think that an unborn child is the same as a child, as far as its "rights" are concerned at least? If not, what differences do you think there should be and why?
And if so, from what point in the pregnancy do those rights accrue : conception? implantation? later?

I'm just trying to work out why you say it's a child and yet women should have the right to abort it. That seems to make some distinction that isn't clear from your posts otherwise and trying to understand what that might be.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2015 8:18pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

To suggest that emotive argument and cherry picking are the exclusive domain of "anti choice" campaigners is hypocritical.

Then my advice would be that you could take that up with someone who did suggest such a thing. You will find however that I did not.... so I am unsure why you brought it up with me.

suicide_circus wrote: »

I'm in a third camp i think...in that I believe it to be an unborn child

And, for the reasons I laid out above, this is a sentence that in isolation says precisely nothing. It sounds pretty if you read over it quickly, but if you stop to unpack what it means, there is nothing there.

Nor are you alone in this. The late Christopher Hitchens pretty much laid out the identical statement you just did. Possibly the only time, even during all the times I disagreed with him, where his argument simply let me down. Even when I disagreed with him, I usually respected the form and weight his arguments took. Just not here.

Maximus Alexander · 10-09-2015 8:19pm

volchitsa wrote: »

How is it "minutiae" to point out that you appear to be saying that the minute implantation occurs, the baby springs, fully formed, into existence.

And if you're not implying that, then what exactly are you saying? Because it's really not clear. Asking someone to clarify their point is hardly "arguing minutiae" either. Is it?

I don't appear to be saying that at all, and I think my response to the OP was pretty clear.

A timeline of events:

OP asks can contraceptives which prevent an embryo from implanting be viewed as abortion.
I point out that, as far as I'm aware, prior to implantation (hint: the time that such contraceptives work) an embryo is a nondescript clump of cells.
You come along and infer that I've made claims about what happens at the instant of implantation - something I never even spoke about.
Lols happen.
I write this post.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 8:21pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then my advice would be that you could take that up with someone who did suggest such a thing. You will find however that I did not.... so I am unsure why you brought it up with me.

And, for the reasons I laid out above, this is a sentence that in isolation says precisely nothing. It sounds pretty if you read over it quickly, but if you stop to unpack what it means, there is nothing there.

Nor are you alone in this. The late Christopher Hitchens pretty much laid out the identical statement you just did. Possibly the only time, even during all the times I disagreed with him, where his argument simply let me down. Even when I disagreed with him, I usually respected the form and weight his arguments took. Just not here.

why would you be taking it in isolation rather than in the highly complex and very personal context in which it naturally resides?

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 8:24pm

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't appear to be saying that at all, and I think my response to the OP was pretty clear.

A timeline of events:
OP asks can contraceptives which prevent an embryo from implanting be viewed as abortion.

I point out that, as far as I'm aware, prior to implantation (hint: the time that such contraceptives work) an embryo is a nondescript clump of cells.

You come along and infer that I've made claims about what happens at the instant of implantation - something I never even spoke about.

Lols happen.

I write this post.

You missed a bit. The one where others - such as me - pointed out to you that for a significant time post implantation the embryo is still an nondescript clump of cells.

So your argument doesn't respond to the OP's query at all, which was about why some people, and the law, make this inexplicable distinction about pre and post implantation.

(And you can do all the lols you like.)

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2015 8:25pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

why would you be taking it in isolation rather than in the highly complex and very personal context in which it naturally resides?

I mean taking it in isolation in what you have written so far on the topic of the thread. Because you have not actually offered anything further, so I am forced to only the option of taking it in isolation.

You have merely introduced a label. "Unborn Child". You have not said what you are applying the label to, or how you define it. What you mean by it, or what you think it says about the topic of, or morality of, abortion. You have simply thrown out a label, nothing more.

Without any of these things, I am simply pointing out that you risk saying precisely nothing, while using quite a number of words to say it.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 8:27pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor are you alone in this. The late Christopher Hitchens pretty much laid out the identical statement you just did. Possibly the only time, even during all the times I disagreed with him, where his argument simply let me down. Even when I disagreed with him, I usually respected the form and weight his arguments took. Just not here.

I doubt Mr Hitchens, were he still with us, would have lost much sleep over your disapproval and I shall take any association with him as a compliment.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 8:28pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I mean taking it in isolation in what you have written so far on the topic of the thread. Because you have not actually offered anything further, so I am forced to only the option of taking it in isolation.

You have merely introduced a label. "Unborn Child". You have not said what you are applying the label to, or how you define it. What you mean by it, or what you think it says about the topic of, or morality of, abortion. You have simply thrown out a label, nothing more.

Without any of these things, I am simply pointing out that you risk saying precisely nothing, while using quite a number of words to say it.

I actually don't feel there is that much to be said on the issue. It is a sad but necessary evil. What more is there to say?

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-09-2015 8:34pm

suicide_circus wrote: »

I doubt Mr Hitchens, were he still with us, would have lost much sleep over your disapproval

That is just cheap really and complete dodge of actually replying to anything I said. But if that is how you want to throw the toys out of the pram, so be it.

So without getting drawn into such cheap baiting I can simply point out that the point remains, that simply throwing out a label like "Unborn child" says precisely nothing.

One would have to define their terms and what they mean by it and what they are applying it to. Following this one would need to show why this definition, and the meeting of it, has any actual bearing on the discussion.

But I fear that many, possibly including yourself, go to such emotive labels precisely _because_ they do not want to engage with that discussion. The hope that the label will do their work for them. After all who would want to go around claiming "Yeah I am ok with killing children"? It is linguistic trickery.

And when one through linguistics rather than with linguistics, one is not actually arguing at all.

More honest, as I said, is to question on what basis we afford any entity moral or ethical concerns. And then ask ourselves at what point in the development the fetus attains this status. There is no emotive trickery with words and propaganda in this approach.

And as I said, I have not been shown, least of all by anyone on this forum, a single moral or ethical argument or statement or evidence or reasoning upon which we should afford a fetus of, say, 14 weeks any moral or ethical concerns at all.

Which is why I have no issue with either abortion up to points like this, or the kinds of abortive contraceptives to which the OP started the thread to discuss.

suicide_circus wrote: »

I actually don't feel there is that much to be said on the issue. It is a sad but necessary evil. What more is there to say?

Well as I said I do not see it as an evil at all. Given there is no argument on offer here to afford moral or ethical concerns to an early term fetus, I therefore similarly see no moral or ethical grounds for seeing such abortions as an "evil", necessary or otherwise.

suicide_circus · 10-09-2015 8:53pm

ok

Ellie2008 · 10-09-2015 9:05pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is just cheap really and complete dodge of actually replying to anything I said. But if that is how you want to throw the toys out of the pram, so be it.

So without getting drawn into such cheap baiting I can simply point out that the point remains, that simply throwing out a label like "Unborn child" says precisely nothing.

One would have to define their terms and what they mean by it and what they are applying it to. Following this one would need to show why this definition, and the meeting of it, has any actual bearing on the discussion.

But I fear that many, possibly including yourself, go to such emotive labels precisely _because_ they do not want to engage with that discussion. The hope that the label will do their work for them. After all who would want to go around claiming "Yeah I am ok with killing children"? It is linguistic trickery.

And when one through linguistics rather than with linguistics, one is not actually arguing at all.

More honest, as I said, is to question on what basis we afford any entity moral or ethical concerns. And then ask ourselves at what point in the development the fetus attains this status. There is no emotive trickery with words and propaganda in this approach.

And as I said, I have not been shown, least of all by anyone on this forum, a single moral or ethical argument or statement or evidence or reasoning upon which we should afford a fetus of, say, 14 weeks any moral or ethical concerns at all.

Which is why I have no issue with either abortion up to points like this, or the kinds of abortive contraceptives to which the OP started the thread to discuss.

Well as I said I do not see it as an evil at all. Given there is no argument on offer here to afford moral or ethical concerns to an early term fetus, I therefore similarly see no moral or ethical grounds for seeing such abortions as an "evil", necessary or otherwise.

Well the arguement is if you didn't abort it you d end up with a human so you are destroying potential life.

volchitsa · 10-09-2015 9:13pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Well the arguement is if you didn't abort it you d end up with a human so you are destroying potential life.

And is that not also true if you don't use contraception? (Assuming one is having regular sex, but then clearly the "abortion" question doesn't arise in the first place if someone isn't having sex.)

Contraception v s abortion

Comments