nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Contraception v s abortion

Ellie2008

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Maximus Alexander

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

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

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?

[Deleted User]

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

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

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

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

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

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

suicide_circus

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

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

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

This conversation is neither Social nor is it Fun

PARlance

Cormac... wrote: »

This conversation is neither Social nor is it Fun

I'm going to pull out.

endacl

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

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

What the fùçķ?

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

Seriously?

Cookie_Monster

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

Annasopra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't EVER have sex. EVER.

End of discussion.

acb121

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

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

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

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.