Turtwig wrote: » Mod: This is going round in circles. Could someone who claims MAP is or isn't abortion provide a substantive explanation as to why that is the case. This means illustrating in detail why it is or is not abortion. Non mod: As an aside, my own understanding is that the map prevents pregnancy in the first instance and for that reason isn't considered abortion. Happy for someone, anyone, to clarify this matter and resolve the revolving door one way or the other.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » What in your mind is an abortion?
Bob_Marley wrote: » Legally and medically there is no question, the morning after pill is an emergency contraceptive and not an abortion pill.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Way to dodge the question.
Bob_Marley wrote: » You're not really happy are you that the straw manning didn't work and the legally and medical opinion is quite clear it's not abortion pill.
Achasanai wrote: » I'll try one last time, so. Can the morning after pill cause the termination of a fertilised egg?
Bob_Marley wrote: » You can guess away if you like, but legal and medical opinion is not a guess and is pretty clear that the morning after pill is not an abortion.
Achasanai wrote: » No, I think it's good that legal and medical opinion can give a bit of leeway with regards to the definition of when human life begins, so happy to leave it at that. I'm guessing you think the same, considering you seem to be so absolute that there's no abortion taking place when a fertilised egg is terminated.
Bob_Marley wrote: » Then you better report it to the DPP and the IMA, because legal and medical opinion is adamant that it is not an abortion pill. But somehow I don't think they will fall for the straw manning either.
Achasanai wrote: » It's not classed as an abortion pill, but it does act as an abortificant. Is this a case of defining human life as different from the moment of fertilisation?
Bob_Marley wrote: » It is straw manning. It is not an abortion pill.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » But does infuse an abortion of a fertilized egg.
Achasanai wrote: » It's not 'strawmanning'. We understand how the morning after pill is defined, but does it not also impact against fertilized eggs?
Bob_Marley wrote: » This isn't a believe, or and opinion, it's a fact. Any biological reference will tell you when the human life cycle begins. For the second time, the Morning After Pill is not an abortion pill, it's an emergency contraceptive. This is not a belief, or an opinion, again, it's a medical and legal fact. Morning After Pills are legal Abortion Pills are not. You've now resorted to straw manning twice.
volchitsa wrote: » But it doesn't do that, thanks to the 13th amendment. What it does do is remove a woman's right to withhold consent for procedures like ARM or c-sections, which are not even best practice. And since it doesn't include unimplanted embryos, it is clearly based on control of women's pregnancies, not on protection of the human embryo in general. Only the ones inside a woman.
volchitsa wrote: » Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » The link you quoted states life begins at fertilization, if this is what you believe
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » then logic dictates that when the MAP prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus it is by all means being aborted! The morning after pillhttp://planb.ca/how-it-works.html So should the MAP be banned?
end of the road wrote: » it's nothing of the sort and it says nothing. the ban on abortion on demand is simply to prevent a woman unnecessarily taking the life of her unborn child.
volchitsa wrote: » Eh? No idea where you're going with that. The point is that the ban on abortion isn't based on life beginning at fertilization, or else the MAP and the coil (IUD)would have to be banned and they arent. Same thing with IVF embryos, which have no legal protection under the 8th. The ban only applies to pregnant women, which says it all really. It's another version of the old male fear of women's reproductive capacities that led to women not being educated or even being burned as witches for stepping out of line, or covered in a burka to ensure they don't get a chance in the first place.
end of the road wrote: » pro-life aren't redefining anything. if our motivation for being against abortion on demand is about controling women then surely preventing women from killing their newborn child is just as much control?
end of the road wrote: agreeed but it's not really relevant to this specific issue given there are people with many different ideals and political views who would be against abortion on demand.
Wanderer78 wrote: » You will find conservatism has a very controling element to it's etos
volchitsa wrote: Redefining abortion so that it refers only to ending a pregnancy and not to protecting the human life that prolifers claim to want to save, proves that the real motivation behind prolife is controlling women.
Bob_Marley wrote: » The morning after pill is an emergency contraception, not an abortion pill, it's primary purpose is to stop ovulation or fertilization of an egg. Medical research and legal judgment are quite clear that emergency contraception prevents pregnancy and is not abortion, so try again.
Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » So in your opinion the morning after pill should be banned as it is an abortion according to that description?
Bob_Marley wrote: » Well scientifically there is no debate as to when a human life begins : It's more case of when you think it's ok to take another human life. As for a female's right to body autonomy, it should be born on mind that as well as the mother, the unborn child could also be a female.
The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
