Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Contraception v s abortion

Options
1356

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Ellie2008 wrote: »
    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.

    I think you're confusing different things though (in your defence, so does our law). Our law does not say whether life begins at conception, just that a woman is not normally entitled to end her pregnancy once it has begun.

    Because this is the thing: you abort a process, like pregnancy, or an attempted landing.

    Which means the process has to have begun, and that is why the term abortion only applies to a commenced pregnancy, not to the embryo.

    And that's also why fertilized test tube embryos which haven't been implanted yet aren't protected by the law, because the law only bans women from having a say over their pregnancies, it doesn't actually protect embryos from conception onwards.


  • Options
    #63
    Noodles81
    Registered Users Posts: 296 ✭✭Noodles81


    This is a private matter and no one else's business. Whether it's right or wrong is up to individual circumstances and we have no right to judge.

    Same as euthanasia, it's personal so butt out of other people's business.

    Whether you think they are murderers or evil or whatever is your consciousness deciding that. It means nothing and your judginess dies with you when you go, it matters not to anything living.

    If there is a God he will have benchmarks you have probably never fathomed in your small mindedness...for being forgiven of so called sin. And if not, well we all return to the earth as dust.

    Spoken by a lady who used the pill and morning after but never had an abortion. I have friends who have though and it's none of my business whether I think this or that implanted.

    Who do you think you are? Look after your own body and never mind anyone else's.

    Protecting the innocent? Semantics... The same bunch would barricade their doors if a teenager from said mother in 15 years came a knockin' on their doors looking for money or a chance at their privileged lives.

    Makes me want to hurl...the pomposity of it all.


  • Options
    #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ellie2008 wrote: »
    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.

    Contraception prevents conception hence the name contraception.... Abortion and contraception have no connection whatsoever.


  • Options
    #65
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    Contraception prevents conception hence the name contraception.... Abortion and contraception have no connection whatsoever.

    Which still leaves a time gap between contraception and abortion when there is a embryo which has been conceived but not yet implanted. Is there any legal or moral question over destroying such an embryo and if not then why is there one over destroying an implanted one which may be only a few days older?


  • Options
    #66
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Samaris wrote: »
    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.
    I would deem it the same as extremely early-term abortion.

    I don't take issue with people being against abortion in numerous scenarios (I'd be the same myself) but I consider it hypocritical of people who are opposed to abortion in all circumstances whatsoever to be ok with the MAP.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    cowboyBuilder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,419 ✭✭✭cowboyBuilder


    You are committing genocide when having a **** ... f*ck this


  • Options
    #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    I would deem it the same as extremely early-term abortion.

    I don't take issue with people being against abortion in numerous scenarios (I'd be the same myself) but I consider it hypocritical of people who are opposed to abortion in all circumstances whatsoever to be ok with the MAP.

    The MAP is absolutely 100% not abortion. This is a fact.


  • Options
    #69
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Noodles81 wrote: »
    This is a private matter and no one else's business. Whether it's right or wrong is up to individual circumstances and we have no right to judge.

    Same as euthanasia, it's personal so butt out of other people's business.

    Whether you think they are murderers or evil or whatever is your consciousness deciding that. It means nothing and your judginess dies with you when you go, it matters not to anything living.

    If there is a God he will have benchmarks you have probably never fathomed in your small mindedness...for being forgiven of so called sin. And if not, well we all return to the earth as dust.

    Spoken by a lady who used the pill and morning after but never had an abortion. I have friends who have though and it's none of my business whether I think this or that implanted.

    Who do you think you are? Look after your own body and never mind anyone else's.

    Protecting the innocent? Semantics... The same bunch would barricade their doors if a teenager from said mother in 15 years came a knockin' on their doors looking for money or a chance at their privileged lives.

    Makes me want to hurl...the pomposity of it all.
    When life starts in the womb (in my opinion that's when sentience commences) it's no longer just her body. I think people can give opposing opinions in relation to abortion, once they don't accompany it with nonsense (like comparing a toddler to a group of cells three weeks after conception) and hypocrisy.


  • Options
    #70
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    The MAP is absolutely 100% not abortion. This is a fact.
    It's extremely similar though when it ends a conception rather than prevents it. Extremely similar to the point of being the same.


  • Options
    #71
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    When life starts in the womb (in my opinion that's when sentience commences) it's no longer just her body. I think people can give opposing opinions in relation to abortion, once they don't accompany it with nonsense (like comparing a toddler to a group of cells three weeks after conception) and hypocrisy.

    When do you consider this occurs? It's my understanding that sentience is not much before viability, if at all. If that's your limit that's pretty much the UK situation. Would that be fair enough?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    It's extremely similar though when it ends a conception rather than prevents it. Extremely similar to the point of being the same.

    You know more than the entire medical profession I take it.

    It is categorically stated every time the MAP is mentioned that it is not abortion nor anything even close or associated with it, saying other wise is stirring sh*t nothing else.

    The MAP prevents the egg from being released from the ovary so prevents conception.


  • Options
    #73
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    You know more than the entire medical profession I take it.

    It is categorically stated every time the MAP is mentioned that it is not abortion nor anything even close or associated with it, saying other wise is stirring sh*t nothing else.

    The MAP prevents ovulation so prevents conception.

    That's not quite right though.
    http://ec.princeton.edu/questions/ecabt.html

    It's not an abortion because it doesn't get rid of a implanted embryo, but it can apparently prevent the fertilized embryo from implanting. Which was the question originally asked - how is it okay to destroy the embryo before i'ts implanted but not after?


  • Options
    #74
    Ellie2008
    Registered Users Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Ellie2008


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    You know more than the entire medical profession I take it.

    It is categorically stated every time the MAP is mentioned that it is not abortion nor anything even close or associated with it, saying other wise is stirring sh*t nothing else.

    You don't have to be a doctor to understand the basics of reproduction.

    Yes but that is because of the way the medical profession has choosen to define pregnancy for the purposes of Irish law starting at implantation. A lot of doctors disagree with this & refuse to prescribe the MAP. There are also doctors and pharmacists in the States who refuse to dispense the pill, implant etc. It seems disingenuous definition on the part of the medical profession when you consider when a person is actually pregnant they often work out the term from the date of conception.


  • Options
    #75
    Cold War Kid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,353 ✭✭✭Cold War Kid


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    You know more than the entire medical profession I take it.

    It is categorically stated every time the MAP is mentioned that it is not abortion nor anything even close or associated with it, saying other wise is stirring sh*t nothing else.

    The MAP prevents ovulation so prevents conception.
    But if she has already ovulated, it acts as an abortifacient. Saying this, is not saying that I know more than the medical profession.


  • Options
    #76
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Google "is the MAP abortion" so and see how you get on :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I'm am completely anti-abortion but contraception or the MAP are simply not abortion.


  • Options
    #77
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    Google "is the MAP abortion" so and see how you get on :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I linked to Princeton university just now, saying that it prevents the fertilized embryo from implanting. You do agree that conception has already taken place in that case, don't you?


  • Options
    #78
    Taco Chips
    Registered Users Posts: 565 ✭✭✭Taco Chips


    I absolutely despise the term "abortion on demand". Treats women with such disrespect, as if they are just rocking up to the clinic easy breezy when in fact it's an extremely tough and sometimes harrowing decision. Part of a wider narrative that defines sexually active women as 'sluts'


  • Options
    #79
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    It's extremely similar though when it ends a conception rather than prevents it. Extremely similar to the point of being the same.

    Pregnancy begins at implantation, which happens five to seven days after fertilisation, so AFAIK, MAP can't be an abortifacient. I guess it comes down to whether one believes it begins at fertilisation or not. Opinion seems a bit divided on the topic, TBH.


  • Options
    #80
    ceadaoin.
    Registered Users Posts: 8,127 ✭✭✭ceadaoin.


    Cold War Kid wrote: »
    But if she has already ovulated, it acts as an abortifacient. Saying this, is not saying that I know more than the medical profession.



    It doesn't act as an abortifacient. If the egg has already been fertilised and implanted then then it won't have any effect on the pregnancy.

    I don't think that preventing implantation can be described as the same as an abortion seeing as a woman is only pregnant once the egg has implanted. It's preventing pregnancy from occurring, not ending it.


  • Options
    #81
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ceadaoin. wrote: »
    It doesn't act as an abortifacient. If the egg has already been fertilised and implanted then then it won't have any effect on the pregnancy.

    I don't think that preventing implantation can be described as the same as an abortion seeing as a woman is only pregnant once the egg has implanted. It's preventing pregnancy from occurring, not ending it.

    So are we agreed that our law is actually about preventing women from controlling their pregnancies, not about respecting the embryo's supposed right to life by dint of existing?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Leanna Little Babel wrote: »
    Google "is the MAP abortion" so and see how you get on :rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I did and got mixed views. Do you believe implantation is the start of pregnancy, or fertilisation?


  • Options
    #83
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Taco Chips wrote: »
    I absolutely despise the term "abortion on demand". Treats women with such disrespect, as if they are just rocking up to the clinic easy breezy when in fact it's an extremely tough and sometimes harrowing decision.

    Me too, the two women I know who have aborted agonised over it.


  • Options
    #84
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    volchitsa wrote: »
    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.)

    I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in this thread who actually say things that you disagree with, so really, there's no need for you to imagine that I did. You can argue with them instead.


  • Options
    #85
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I'm sure you'll find plenty of people in this thread who actually say things that you disagree with, so really, there's no need for you to imagine that I did. You can argue with them instead.
    It's funny that you seem offended at being asked to explain what exactly you are saying since you spend so much time telling us what you aren't saying.

    Would you agree that post-implantation the embryo is still just a clump of cells much the same as it was pre-implantaton?


  • Options
    #86
    The Golden Miller
    Registered Users Posts: 5,103 ✭✭✭The Golden Miller


    Taco Chips wrote: »
    I absolutely despise the term "abortion on demand". Treats women with such disrespect, as if they are just rocking up to the clinic easy breezy when in fact it's an extremely tough and sometimes harrowing decision. Part of a wider narrative that defines sexually active women as 'sluts'

    Ah ye, the poor women, everyone's always out to get them.

    Ye it's tough because it's morally wrong and they know they are killing their unborn child, and what makes it even tougher for most is that they know deep down they could have it but just aren't arsed and are selfish as it might put them out a bit down the road (same for the guys who urge them on in many cases). And I say most, but not all cases, as I am in favor of abortion in special circumstances like ffa for example before someone tries to hit me with a load of stand alone extreme cases. And not all are selfish and not arsed as each case is different, but certainly the majority from my experience


  • Options
    #87
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    volchitsa wrote: »
    It's funny that you seem offended at being asked to explain what exactly you are saying since you spend so much time telling us what you aren't saying.

    Would you agree that post-implantation the embryo is still just a clump of cells much the same as it was pre-implantaton?

    I'm not offended at all, rather vaguely amused.

    You appear to have been blinded by your agenda and thus parsed what I said incorrectly. Regardless of whether I shoulder some of the blame for a lack of clarity, or it's all down to your lack of comprehension, I don't really care to make the effort to clarify.


  • Options
    #88
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    I'm not offended at all, rather vaguely amused.

    You appear to have been blinded by your agenda and thus parsed what I said incorrectly. Regardless of whether I shoulder some of the blame for a lack of clarity, or it's all down to your lack of comprehension, I don't really care to make the effort to clarify.

    So how many posts is that you've made refusing to clarify, but you don't "care to make the effort" to type yes or no? :lol:

    Grand so. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #89
    Maximus Alexander
    Registered Users Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So how many posts is that you've made refusing to clarify, but you don't "care to make the effort" to type yes or no? :lol:

    Grand so. :rolleyes:

    Cool. :cool:


  • Options
    #90
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,034 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Maximus Alexander wrote: »
    Cool. :cool:

    Looks like the one with the agenda was you then. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,695 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Would you agree that post-implantation the embryo is still just a clump of cells much the same as it was pre-implantaton?


    By that standard then, we're all just 'clumps of cells' when you use such reductive definitions. The arbitrary point between pre- and post-implantation is a useful determinant point IMO when deciding the point at which a pregnancy begins.

    That arbitrary point is useful so we don't end up with nonsense like 'a little bit pregnant' - either a woman is pregnant, or she isn't, and as I understand their use, contraceptives prevent pregnancy from occurring, whereas an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has begun by implantation.

    They're two completely unrelated arguments as far as I understand both are completely different stages in the human reproductive cycle.

    I'm open to correction on that though?


Advertisement