Contraception v s abortion

NachoBusiness

eternal wrote: »

Don't EVER have sex. EVER.

End of discussion.

But what if..

eternal

NachoBusiness wrote: »

But what if..

Hahahaha.
Only in America ffs

acb121

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ok

Ellie2008

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

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.)

Ellie2008

volchitsa wrote: »

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.)

Sorry I don't quite follow would you mind expanding?

volchitsa

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Sorry I don't quite follow would you mind expanding?

Well, in my case, I'm married, sex is something that happens pretty regularly, you know? So if I didn't take active steps to prevent myself getting pregnant, a baby is something that would happen pretty much every year.

So I'm taking steps to destroy potential life, which is what you said earlier. Unless you think sperm and eggs aren't potential life. But if they aren't, then how could they turn into a baby without me doing anything more than what I normally do anyway, ie live a normal life, which includes sex with my husband,

Ellie2008

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, in my case, I'm married, sex is something that happens pretty regularly, you know? So if I didn't take active steps to prevent myself getting pregnant, a baby is something that would happen pretty much every year.

So I'm taking steps to destroy potential life, which is what you said earlier. Unless you think sperm and eggs aren't potential life. But if they aren't, then how could they turn into a baby without me doing anything more than what I normally do anyway, ie live a normal life, which includes sex with my husband,

Hmm I think separately sperm & eggs aren't potential life, they are each missing an ingredient but when you join them is where I have an issue because then you have all the ingredients you need, the cells start to divide straight away and will keep doing so for 9 months.

Comparing abortion and contraception, typical pro abortion/unborn baby killing water muddying nonsense.

gutenberg

Ellie2008 wrote: »

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

Ellie2008 wrote: »

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

I think you need to be more specific when talking about different kinds of contraception and how they prevent pregnancy.

Generally, the contraceptive pill (the combined pill) doesn't have an 'anti-implantation' effect. It works through preventing ovulation, thus preventing egg & sperm from meeting and creating an embryo. With the combined pill, there is still a monthly build-up of the womb lining (and thus a monthly bleed), so if through some error an egg is released and an embryo is created, it can still implant as there is a lining around the womb for it. Now, very possibly it is *slightly* harder for the embryo to implant as the pill can also make the womb lining thinner than it might otherwise be, but the chief method of preventing pregnancy with the contraceptive pill is through preventing ovulation, not implantation. That's how pregnancy still occurs among women on the pill. Of course, one can debate the ethics of preventing a natural process (ovulation) from occurring and the impact on reproductive rights.

With the progesterone-only contraceptive pill (the mini pill), it works through thickening mucus in the cervix, and preventing sperm access to the egg. In most women it also stops ovulation, thus working in a similar way to the combined pill.

As far as I understand the different options, the only true anti-implantation method of contraceptive is the coil, or implant. There are two types, one with hormones & one without. With the hormonal coil, it works in a very similar way to the pill through preventing ovulation via the release of hormones; the presence of the physical coil also prevents implantation, but with the hormonal coil the main way to acts is to again prevent fertilisation from ever happening.

With the non-hormonal or copper coil, its primary method is preventing implantation. With the copper coil you can have an embryo formed, as it doesn't stop ovulation, but the embryo will be unable to implant itself into the womb lining due to the coil.

So really, what you're talking about I think only really applies to the copper coil (and arguably the hormonal coil), rather than the pill.

Ellie2008

Leanna Little Babel wrote: »

Comparing abortion and contraception, typical pro abortion/unborn baby killing water muddying nonsense.

Hmm I don't think so just because we or rather the medical community when supporting big pharma label one thing "contraception" and another thing "abortion" does that mean the divide between abortion is set in stone between pre & post implantation, seems odd to me. I don't see how you can argue life doesn't begin at conception.

volchitsa

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Hmm I think separately sperm & eggs aren't potential life, they are each missing an ingredient but when you join them is where I have an issue because then you have all the ingredients you need, the cells start to divide straight away and will keep doing so for 9 months.

Right, but I'm not sure I see the difference really. You don't "do" anything when they join, it just happens. Same way many early pregnancies either never implant or implant but then fail - again, the woman doesn't do anything to become or to stay pregnant, it's all independent of her consciousness or her will.

So to go back to your original question, what's the difference between before and after implantation, and I'd say, very little. And not that much more difference between the stage before implantation and what exists before fertilization for that matter.

toptom

theres more teenagers going round now with kids then there was when those things were illegal.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Which is a non-argument really because linguistically it negates itself. If you declare it a potential life, you have linguistically said it is not a life now. If you say at some point it will be human, you are also saying it is not human now.

You can not be "X" and potentially "X" at the same time. So the argument defeats itself.

I afford human rights to humans. I see nothing else to afford them to. So if it is only "potentially" one, then what you are actually telling me is that it is NOT one and as such my original position remains: That I see no argument on offer to afford it moral rights or concerns.

In other words, you would basically be arguing me INTO my position rather than out of it, if you make such a point.

toptom wrote: »

theres more teenagers going round now with kids then there was when those things were illegal.

That is bordering quite close to being a correlation/causation error statement so you might want to be careful how you expand on it, if at any point you care to.

Samaris

The morning after pill is a questionmark. Conception can take place up to a couple of days after sex and the pill can prevent that happening. So, in that case, it's merely contraception. On the other hand, possibly the woman was ovulating in the period that sex took place, and conception happened before the morning after pill was taken. Then it's prevented from implanting. Some people might call that abortion, personally, I don't. Arbritary if you like, but given that it's almost impossible to know the moment of conception without medical testing, I'm not taking the morning after pill as being strictly speaking abortion.