Home - List All Discussions

Contraception

Is it right?

by: laurissamarcotte

My church teaches that it is wrong because God evidently wants the baby there. But I'm still curious about other people's opinions about the birth control pill. Why do you think it's right/wrong?

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I think it is wrong because sex is not meant to be separated from procreation. The fact that the result of sex is a pregnancy is proof of that. You can't just "turn ferility off" -- I know people who learned the hard way. If a woman doesn't want to have a child, don't have sex! Or just have sex when she isn't fertile.

reply from: galen

it all depends on your personal belief system. i am catholic, i teach NFP, i also hand out condoms at the women's shelter to those who do practice BC. i do not give referrals for abortions however. personally i would not use the Pill or iud or norplant, but condoms do more than prevent pregnancy, they prevent disease, and unless you have known yur partner or spouse 24 - 7 for his/ her entire life, and you are with them when they go to the MD for a physical and a STD screen and have the results handed to you personally on a weekly basis. there is no 100% sure that your lover, spose etc. has never had sex with someone else. I try to play it safe and healthy, i teach my boys the same thing. Abstinance is great and we promote it for them and other teens, but we also let them know how to use a condom. Did you know that young people who pledge abstinance have an 80% chance of having sex before marrige and they are less likely to use any form of protection?? interesting stat.

mary

reply from: Alexandra

I think it's between a married couple and God.

I do not believe in handing out contraception to unwed couples. I think they'd be less likely to fool around if they don't have that "safety" net.

reply from: bradensmommy

I have been on the pill since I was 18, I was not sexually active at that time but my mom and I both thought it necessary since I was going off to college. I did however decide to have sex at that time but I made the guy that I had sex with use a condom. I don't think people are bad who don't wait til marriage. In my opinion it is my "try it before you buy it" kinda deal. I am a sexual person, I will admit that, but I am also a responsible one. My husband and I used condoms before we were married, in conjunction with the pill. I believe as long as you are responsible there is nothing wrong with being sexually active, I also believe that in turn you should be responsible for your actions. I don't like it when one brings up thier religion to try to tell others what is right and wrong about contraceptions. I believe if used properly and every time it will decrease unwanted pregnancies.

reply from: Bito

It's not well known that the pill acts as an abortificient. That means when the sperm and egg unite, the pill destroys this so the fertilized egg cannot implant in the woman's uterus.

Bito

reply from: dignitarian

Through human sexuality, God has given us a role of mutual giving in His miracle of creation.

Whenever we sever this critical relationship, the gift of human sexuality necessarily suffers for it.

By categorically divorcing the potentiality of Life in human sexuality, this most intimate of all human relationships suddenly becomes self-focused and shallow. Without the miraculous dimension of life, man and woman can gradually draw apart in their sexuality. As the goal of sexuality becomes a more self-centered type of fulfillment it loses its natural mutual intimacy.

The component of Life in human sexuality is VERY important.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: NorthStar

I believe, from a strict moral perspective, that contraception is wrong. Use of it necessarily creates an irreconcilable contradiction.

If the person wants a child, why would he or she use a device or drug that reduces the possibility of having one?
If the person does not want a child, why would he or she be engaging in a behavior- sexual intercourse- that creates the possibility of having a child?

Supporters of contraception apparently assume that it is perfectly effective- or reasonably close to that level of effectiveness. Such is not the case. For example, oral contraceptives- the most popular form of contraception- have a 92 percent failure rate. How can reliance on contraception be a responsible decision when a 92 percent chance exists that such an action will result in an unwanted pregnancy?

Oral contraceptives are also morally problematic because they have a potential abortifacient effect, as some have mentioned.

reply from: galen

sorry NS but i think you have your facts mixed up? maybe go back and edit? BCP have a 98% sucessrate... they say 99% but if you factor human error into it the rate is a bit less. If yu believe that at fertilization a fully viable human life occurs than this method is not for you, however if you believe that life starts at implantation, then it is a reliable method.

Mary

reply from: NorthStar

What is your source? The Alan Guttmacher Institute- a pro-contraception organization- reports that oral contraceptives have an eight percent annual failure rate assuming typical use. However, that figure is not relevant for our purposes because it is based on the assumption that a woman is only fertile for one year of her life. In reality, the typical woman is fertile for about thirty years of her life, not one. When that assumption is relaxed, we see that the true failure rate of oral contraceptives is 92 percent. Do the math.

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

Here is another way to view the lifetime failure rate of oral contraceptives. If a woman uses them as her only method of birth control- not backed up by abstinence, sterilization, or other forms of contraception- she can expect to have 2.4 pregnancies in her lifetime. Considering that the average American woman only has 2.06 children during her childbearing years, 2.4 pregnancies is a very high number of expected failures.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

reply from: AshMarie88

I'm kind of torn on it, really.

reply from: bradensmommy

So I guess that married couples should only have sex when they want a child....

Try telling that to my husband, or any sex-driven man at that....

reply from: nsanford

Yes. Some people want to have sex, and do not want children. Laurissa, are you saying now that men and women should have sex just for procreation? That is a purely religious view. Once the baby is created, I see your point in trying to keep it alive. But now your trying to protect something that does not exist yet. Doesn't make sense, to me at least.

reply from: laurissamarcotte

No, I'm saying it is my firm belief that sex should not be separated from the possibility of pregnancy. I don't care if a married couple want to have sex for a baby or just for their relationship, I believe that birth control is wrong.

reply from: nsanford

No, I'm saying it is my firm belief that sex should not be separated from the possibility of pregnancy. I don't care if a married couple want to have sex for a baby or just for their relationship, I believe that birth control is wrong.

Going by that view, do you realize that will cause more abortions? Young woman who have sex at a young age will find out their pregnant, and will abort. So what do you want, birth control or more abortions?

Personally, I perfer the former.

reply from: galen

Sorry NS that is not how the stats work... go to the Orthowebsite or any of the pharmacutical websites and take a look at how the FDA requires them to present thier data. i've been doing this for a long time and i have seen your argument before, however its skewed data.

Mary

reply from: AshMarie88

Then those people should be sterilized IMMEDIATELY before they even start having a sexual relationship. Wouldn't you say?

It should also be free to do that.

reply from: galen

soooo Ash? you get married and can not afford a family, or don't want one right away...what then? Even the Duggers ( they are the family with 16 kids) waited a few years before starting thier family. What do you think they did. Went to bed and stared at each other longingly??

Ash i know you are not married, but part of the plan is consummation. And when you do get married then you will be able to experience what Solomon wrote about, maybe then you will inderstand why it is important to that relationship. plus God wanted us to have and to protect our children. not have so many that we drive the family into poverty. man and wife should not give up the physical pleasure of thier relationship just because they happen to have min wage jobs. Some form of BC is the answer to that. It does not have to be the pill. it could be any barrier method or NFP.
Aslo some women must stop reproduction for health reasons and those same reasons can preclude surgery for sterilization, it is also something that is irriversable. Humans can and do change thier veiws on things like how many kids, what vacation, and such.

Mary

reply from: NorthStar

I would be happy to. Bring him on to the board.

reply from: NorthStar

So merely wanting to do something justifies taking the action? If that is true, what actions would be wrong?

How so?

Why not?

reply from: NorthStar

Going by that view, do you realize that will cause more abortions? Young woman who have sex at a young age will find out their pregnant, and will abort. So what do you want, birth control or more abortions?

Personally, I prefer the former.

But if people refrain from sexual intercourse when they are unable or unwilling to parent a child, unintended pregnancies would not occur.

I do not want to speak for laurissa, but personally, I think it is morally acceptable for people to engage in sexual intercourse for non-procreative reasons if they are willing to fully accept responsibility for a resulting pregnancy.

If people really want to engage in sexual intercourse so badly, they should be willing to accept responsibility for doing so. My problem is with people who engage in the behavior only because they know they can slough off the consequences on to someone else.

reply from: NorthStar

With all due respect, you presented neither a source nor an argument. Your appeal to authority is also useless in this context because it cannot be verified in any way.

reply from: bradensmommy

I would be happy to. Bring him on to the board.

Would love to, unfortunately he is on his second tour of duty in Iraq...

Tell me again why couples should only have sex to reproduce again....many military wives like myself woul love to know, especially when they don't see thier husbands every day. I would love to stay and "debate" this rediculous issue, but my vibrators calling me *gasp* OH MY WORD!!!

reply from: teddi

Even if we got w/an 8% failure rate, it's not 8% x 30 years. Because the rate of efficacy is per year, so that would also mean that every year 92% x 30 she wouldn't get pregnant. The rate of failure in total, each year, for each 8%. Galen was right, that's not how the math works.

I forget who the OP was. But there's like 8 different questions in the one she asked. CONTRA-CEPTION is one thing, "birth control pill" another. Right in a moral only context? Or legal? Or social policy? Or religiously?

I don't believe contra-ception is immoral. It's not amoral to not want a child at a particular time in life, (or ever) for whatever reasons. Just as I am not willing to risk the bad health impact of being in a car wreck w/out my seat belt, I personally have very valid reasons for not wanting to get pregnant until my family and health permit (severe hyperemesis gravidarum = very unhealthy mom). That said, if you get in a car you might get in a wreck. You still can try and protect yourself by putting on your seatbelt and picking a car with airbags, etc.

God gave us fertility and sexuality, but he also gave us brains, and even thousands of years ago, people knew how to practice NFP.

The birth control pill is hairy issue. I do not want my body to be hostile to any child of mine at any point in development, so all hormonal methods are out (plus I do not believe they are safe as we are being told). Ok, so if it prevents ovulation, I can't see anything wrong with that. If it changes cervical muscus I can't see anything wrong there. Those both work pre-conception. The changing of the uterine lining is where the problem comes in. . .

Should women be required to keep their womb in tip top shape for a baby, before said baby even exists?

I come down with an answer of no. I believe the new life, which is the one that splits and differentiates into the child and the parts there to sustain the child, has to be able to deal with the environment it is in. Many women have wombs naturally hostile (luteal phase defects, women with fibroids, women endometriosis, etc, etc). Many babies have certainly over come these and more (like ectopic pregnancies that have gone to term). Even todays bc pills do act PRIMARILY by preventing ovulation and allowing sperm to get to the egg.

However- I do want to see some laws passed. Just as some states have "informed consent" laws about abortion, I want to see mandatory informed consent given so that before a Dr can prescribe any hormonal method- women are told that if they concieve they are at a huge risk of aborting that baby. Many Christian, pro-life women don't understand fully how the current day birth control pills work. Certainly *I* was one of them. After my son was born (and birth control shoved down my throat by my Drs) I was told that it was "safe" to take the MINI PILL (I was nursing!!!) The MINI PILL. Well, at that time all I knew was that the pill stopped you from ovulating. So I had NO idea.... then I read the package insert and all of a sudden I realized that it said "alterning uterine lining preventing implantation"! A no one told me and no one asked me if I wanted to do that!

reply from: dignitarian

This is an interesting issue.

To the confused: The case against contraception does not insist that procreation be the objective of human sexuality, rather the case against contraception simply insists that human sexuality must not actively exclude the potentiality of procreation. This is why Natural Family Planning (NFP) would be acceptable for example, while artificial means of birth control are not.

Previously I stated the negative impacts of contraception to human sexuality. Just as well though, I recognize the negative aspects of unwanted/undeserved/inconvenient procreation and the subsequent abusive/dysfunctional human relationships. But for anyone who thinks artificial birth control is a actual solution to this cultural disfunction, they are kidding themselves. Artificial birth control will certainly prevent unwanted births, but at the same time it will also serve to perpetuate the underlying reasons for our culture’s crisis in human relationship; i.e. materialism, self-centeredness, lack of commitment, and a very limited and superficial view of human sexuality and human dignity.

I am not claiming to have all the answers here and the truth doesn’t always give us the kind of answers we like. But if we insist that artificial birth control is a perfectly moral thing to do, our capacity for self-giving love will necessarily diminish. Thus human dignity will diminish.

Regards,

Dignitarian

reply from: ThunderKitten

I was so mad when I went to the doctor a few years back because I was having painful periods and she tried to push birth control pills on me. I told her I didn't want to use them because it causes a fertilized egg to be expelled and she told me that it doesn't! That it only prevents ovulation! So she was either ignorant or a liar-not good coming from one's doc. She got pissy, too, and asked me if I was gonna use the sample pills, 'cause if I wasn't then someone else could use them. She ended up writing me a prescription, which I never filled.

So I think the first thing would be to make it mandatory that doctors tell people whether or not something is an abortificient! Of course, there's other reasons not to take the pill besides one's morals, not that the doc mentioned those, either. But when the hell do doctors ever inform their patients about what any treatments do?

reply from: tjlsmom

I totally agree with you. There have been some excellent posts in this thread, but one thing hasn't been brought up......... The "pioneers" of the early 20th century who worked to change society's attitude toward contraception to a favorable one KNEW that widespread acceptance of it would ultimately lead to widespread acceptance of abortion- and that was their ultimate goal. Another little tidbit......the term "birth control" was originally "race control".......the latter was coined by Margaret Sanger, who later changed it to the former on the advice of an associate who didn't think it was a good idea for the news to get out that one of their main goals was to slowly exterminate certain "undesirable" races of people by convincing them that "birth control" - and ultimately abortion - was best for them. (They also believed in the forced sterilization of "undesirables", and requiring couples to get permits before having children.)

reply from: tjlsmom

Yes, they certainly can be very pushy to try to get you to use the pill, can't they? (Don't get me started!) What gets me is when you go in for a physical, and one of their standard questions is, "What kind of contraception are you using?" Never mind if you're single or married, and they don't even ask IF you use it (as if it has anything to do with your physical exam in the first place), but just assume that of course you do.

reply from: tjlsmom

I hear you! I didn't know it was even on the insert that the pill can prevent implantation. Someone who was very close to me never would believe that, because her (Christian) doctor never told her (he likely didn't know)........ Maybe the inserts vary with different pharmaceutical companies?

I have never heard that it is possible for ectopic pregnancies to go to term. Can you tell me where you've heard of it, I'd be very interested to learn about it!

reply from: NorthStar

I would like to emphasize that my first post used the phrase "from a strict moral perspective." The seriousness of the sin, in my opinion, varies substantially based on the circumstances. Using contraception with a spouse, for example, is less problematic than using it with a prostitute.

I also think that the seriousness of the sin varies based on the level of effectiveness of the method of contraception. The levels of effectiveness of different forms of contraception vary widely. Here are the extrapolated lifetime failure rates for some common forms of contraception, to demonstrate my point.

Spermicides 99.997%
Withdrawal 99.992%
NFP 99.982%
Female condom 99.915%
Male condom 99.237%
Oral contraceptives 91.8%
Patch 91.8%
Depo-Provera 60.0%
Implant 1.50%

Given the above figures, I think it would be relatively reasonable for a married couple to rely on the implant if they could accept the consequences of a failure. But some of the other forms are so ineffective that I question how anyone can rely on them with a good faith willingness to accept responsibility for failures.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/youth/health/contraceptives/effective.htm

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_contr_use.html

reply from: teddi

There've been about 100 documented cases of babies (and moms) surviving extra- uterine pregnancies.

There was a set of triplets in the UK a few years back, two were intrauterine, one was not. Initially in the fallopian tube, it benignly ruptured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,3900822,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/health/444381.stm

A mom in Africa (baby implanted in the liver)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2932608.stm

Another UK mom
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=360767&in_page_id=1774

A mom in Toronto Aug. 15, 2003
"It may be every woman's fantasy, and a nightmare for the typical man: creating a male mom....Dionne Grant, 30, delivered a healthy baby boy after the fetus developed in her abdomen. The birth -- a rare ectopic pregnancy carried to term -- proved that a baby can grow outside the womb.

A mom in Utah
http://www.ardms.org/registrants/RegistryReports/Sep99.pdf#search=

reply from: galen

NS I gave you a place to go and find your stats, i try not to post links anymore because they fill up space and rarely if ever get used. i am sorry that you are so hung up on making a viable alternative for some look like a major felony. if you are going to use your " facts" at least learn how to do statistical math and use real numbers and not stuff that came from someones lunch napkin.
i keep my identity a secret hear to protect women that use this persona as many of them in the shelter here do not want to be found. however i think i have prooven my backround many times over in my posts.

have a nice day,

Mary

reply from: teddi

So, by using NFP, which does NOT alter a woman's body in anyway, and reduces the chance of sex by not having it at certain times, is somehow immoral????

And as far as being such a failure, I've succesfully used NFP for 5 1/2. Didn't concieve when we were hoping not to, and did conceive very quickly when we did want to.

I'm not going to argue your religious views, though I disagree with the concept of "seriousness" of sin, unless you mean only the results that can come from, and then I'd have to know whether you mean the flesh results or the spiritual results.

However, even if we do concieve, I fail to see how that makes us irresponsible in anyway. It may be unintended, but not child of mine will ever be unwanted.

reply from: galen

Good for you tedi ... glad to see you on this board.

mary

reply from: bradensmommy

I'm just glad I didn't marry a guy like northstar or my vibe would be my best friend....

reply from: NorthStar

Suppose one hundred women use oral contraceptives for a year. Eight of them will become pregnant, on average. The next year eight more will become pregnant. The next year eight more, and so on. So multiply eight by thirty and then divide by 100 to get the per-woman figure. Your 30 x .92 figure represents the number of pregnancies a user of oral contraceptives would not be having because she is using contraceptives (plus other causes of failure). So, using oral contraceptives can be expected to prevent a woman from experiencing as many as 27.6 pregnancies, but the remaining number of pregnancies- 2.4- is significant.

The original question was about our views on the morality of contraception. My comments are limited to that domain.

I agree.

I am glad you brought up that analogy. Would you get in a car and go on a trip if you knew that a 92 percent chance existed that you would be in a fatal crash? What if the trip was unnecessary? In reality, the chances of being in a car crash are very low, whereas the chances of becoming pregnant from regularly engaging in sexual intercourse are very high (unless a very effective form of contraception is used). And using transportation is nearly a necessity, whereas engaging in sexual intercourse is not.

reply from: NorthStar

I have no problem specifically with using natural family planning. My problem is with relying on it.

The results that I am discussing include abortions, the creation of orphans, single-parent families, and families that are larger than optimal size.

reply from: nsanford

Then those people should be sterilized IMMEDIATELY before they even start having a sexual relationship. Wouldn't you say?

It should also be free to do that.

What!? You want to sterilize people who don't want children? Leaving aside how much that interferes a person's rights, what I meant was that they may not want children then. Sorry if you misunderstood.

reply from: ThunderKitten

I personally don't like contraception as far as I'm concerned because:

1. It's not effective enough for me to not worry about getting pregnant. If it were say, 99.9% effective that would be enough to where I could relax. After my baby was born I went seven months without any sex, mostly because I was so afraid of getting pregnant again. Recently, I've had sex once in about three months. The problem is, I don't know if the condom is going to break now, or three years from now. It's very stressful.

2. I don't like the idea that someone would want to sleep with me, but doesn't want me getting pregnant. I take that very personally. It's different after having a kid with the person, then the guy is allowed to not want any more, but he has to be accepting if it does happen. Otherwise, don't sleep with me!

I love my baby, but I'm done breeding for now. Sometimes I wish I were bisexual, then I wouldn't have to worry about this stuff anymore.

reply from: tjlsmom

There've been about 100 documented cases of babies (and moms) surviving extra- uterine pregnancies.

Thank you for the articles, I will certainly read them!

reply from: NorthStar

Your second point was interesting.

In regard to your first point, have your considered using a more effective form of contraception like the implant?

"If Implanon is implanted according to instructions - that is, at the right time and in the correct way - it is a very reliable contraceptive method. This was shown in the trials, in which no pregnancies occurred during use over approximately 73,000 monthly cycles. The high reliability is also supported by data obtained following the launch of Implanon."

http://www.organon.com/products/contraception/Implanon.asp?ComponentID=10125&SourcePageID=53906

reply from: CAS

They don't have a 92% FAILURE rate, they have a 92% SUCCESS rate. Only 8% of users will become pregnant, however that stat is not correct - it is a 99% success rate, and that includes human error....for example, some antibiotics will cause the pill to become ineffective, but most often women just miss a pill or two and then have sex.

What about people who are married and sterile? What about women who have gone through menopause? Are they not allowed to share in a sexual relationship with their husbands? I believe the Bible specifically tells both men and women to surrender their bodies to their spouses.

CAS

reply from: NorthStar

The annual "success rate" is 92 percent. However, if you raise .92 to the thirtieth power, you get eight percent. My contention is that that figure is more relevant because it takes into consideration the fact that women are fertile for about thirty years of their lives, not one year.

Why would infertile people be using contraception?

reply from: NorthStar

Don't you support our troops? If you supported our troops, you wouldn't use a vibrator. Instead, you would save up all of your sexual energy for when your husband came home. That way, you could produce many more citizens for Mother America. Or don't you love America?

j/k

reply from: bigjdubb

I really don't like the argument of intercourse for procreation only. What I take from that statement is that we shouldn't do things for personal pleasure. By that token I should feel guilty for making my food taste good, I should just eat some sort of protein and vitamin paste. I should never swim the the ocean unless I need to cross it and I should only laugh for the health benefits associated with laughing. Sex is an intimate expression of love not just an act of procreation.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

ORGASMS - they come highly recommended!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

No, it's not JUST an act of pro-creation, it's for pleasure also. BUT, it's pointless to pretend that it does not include the chance of creating a human being along with it. That is why I can't why women just shouldn't have sex when they're ovulating . That way, there would be no possible chance in which a baby could be created. It's not like we're animals who can't control out sexual tendancies!

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

ORGASMS - they come highly recommended!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Ah yes, personal pleasure is the center of out lives!...

reply from: battynatty2003

i think that it is ok to use protection. if a woman wants to have sex and not get pregnant then that is good. id rather use a condom and be on the pill than have an abortion and kill a human life!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

The only problem is that the pill can be an abortificent and kill the child before s/he implants in the uterus.

reply from: battynatty2003

i was forced to start taking the pill on my 16th birthday by my mum. 1 month later i stopped using it because it is wrong. however i think that use of the condom is right if i want sex with no baby then fair enough, however, if the condom failed and i fell pregnant i would keep the baby. ABORTION IS WRONG!

reply from: darklight

i think personally contraception is a wonderful idea...i mean the condom helps prevent STDs and can also prevent pregnancy. i mean i'd rather there was contraception than abortion anyday. but alas accidents happen...and therefore abortion is preferred than child abuse, i'd rather an unborn child was aborted unknowingly, than live life knowing it was unwanted and abused...which could in fact lead to depression and maybe even suicide.
for myself i wouldn't want to have an abortion unless it killed me to have the baby/i was raped/or my baby would be mentally impaired. but for others pro-choice i don't believe i can make a decision for what is best for another woman.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

ok ban contraception and "ban" abortion, assuming that women wouldn't go for a "backstreet abortion" (which they would do in the real world), who is going to pay for all the extra children who are produced as a result of this?

reply from: yoda

So it's the fear of higher taxes that makes you want to see other women killing their babies?

Innocent human life should never have a price on it's head.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

People will most likely be more careful if they didn't have a "Plan B."

reply from: bigjdubb

Why is there so much worry about "back alley" abortions? That is an argument I hear allot.

reply from: Alina

Why is there so much worry about "back alley" abortions? That is an argument I hear allot.

Women have been aborting babies for as long as they've been having them, regardless of the political climate and regardless of the moral objections of anybody else. Banning abortion won't stop it, it'll just send it underground.

Personally i'm pro choice. I come from a family of doctors, so i know exactly what a fetus is etc (just clarifying those before i get labelled as 'ignorant to the baby'). Yes, it's alive in the biological sense, but then so a kidney. So is a tumour. What i do know is that the woman carrying an unwanted pregnancy is alive, and she is alive in every single sense of the word. Under no circumstances do i believe that a non sentient, non viable fetus, dependent solely upon the body of another person for survival, should have rights over and above that person.

reply from: battynatty2003

exactly how do you think they coped in the 1900's when abortion wasnt around? did you see the goverment with no money because of all the extra babies?? NO! why? because people were more careful. if they got pregnant then tough its their fault. thats how it should be today!

reply from: laurissamarcotte

exactly how do you think they coped in the 1900's when abortion wasnt around? did you see the goverment with no money because of all the extra babies?? NO! why? because people were more careful. if they got pregnant then tough its their fault. thats how it should be today!Agreed!

reply from: yoda

Read the thread on the UN study that said that making abortion legal did not improve women's survival rates, big.

reply from: yoda

What a lovely collection of probabykilling euphemisms.

There is no "not quite alive in every sense of the word" organism. Organisms are either alive or dead, period. Unborn humans are either alive or dead, and if they are dead they will stay that way forever.

And a kidney or a tumor is not an organism, they are minor parts of an organism. I know that may be difficult for you to grasp, but try anyway.

But your euphemism "should have rights over and above that person" is the real prize-winner. What you mean is that IYO no unborn baby should have the right to life if it's mother want to kill it. You want to preserve the legal right of the mother to kill her baby, but you're unwilling to put it bluntly, aren't you?

reply from: Alina

What a lovely collection of probabykilling euphemisms.

Well, it goes without saying that you're less than enamoured with the comparisons i made. Pro baby killing? Ok, if that's what you want to call me go ahead. It's true that i'd rather see an aborted fetus than a woman forced to gestate against her will. I guess whether you believe that is a good or bad stance depends entirely upon your perspective.

There is no "not quite alive in every sense of the word" organism. Organisms are either alive or dead, period. Unborn humans are either alive or dead, and if they are dead they will stay that way forever.

I personally differentiate between existing in the biological sense of the word, and actually having a life and all that pertains to, thus i was speaking philosophically (which is actually what this debate rests upon -philosophical beliefs and opinions). In my mind life ('quality of' if you would prefer) is more valuable than simply existing. Thus i'm pro choice. In the issue of abortion there is a clash of interests, i believe the woman should take precedence over the fetus which is entirely dependent upon her in order to sustain life.

And a kidney or a tumor is not an organism, they are minor parts of an organism. I know that may be difficult for you to grasp, but try anyway.

Well thanks for that, i appreciate it. You needen't worry about teaching me biology in future however, as i am actually heading for med school

You did actually miss my point. I guess i'm heading into another point of the debate which actually isn't at all relative to my personal stance (whatever the situation/circumstance etc i'm with the woman 100%), but so be it. A fetus, during the time period in which the majority of abortions take place, is a non sentient life form that is alive in purely the biological sense - hence my comparisons.

btw, It'll take me a while to master the 'tools' of this messageboard, so sorry there is no clear definition between your posts and mine.

reply from: Alina

I've seen the UN thread. The UN study was not even concerned solely with the issue of abortion, it simply rounded up data from countries. The comparisons made were done by pro lifers, and are flawed.

First, Poland and Ireland export many of their abortions to Germany and England.
Second, Russia and the US are two VAST countries with poor medical systems, Poland and Ireland are two countries that are small and have universal health coverage.

If you'd like an actual UN study that is concerned solely with abortion, here's one:

https://http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM

"Restrictive abortion laws do not prevent abortion but force women to seek illegal and usually unsafe abortions. In Latin America, where abortion is almost completely illegal, the rate is between 30 to 60 per 1,000. In the Netherlands, with Europe's most liberal abortion law, only five out of 1,000 women opt for abortion. The average of Western Europe is 14 abortions per 1,000 women.
Of the estimated 45 million abortions worldwide annually, only 25 million are legal. At least 70,000 women die each year as a consequence of unsafe abortion, and millions more suffer severe health problems."

reply from: yoda

Thus the label "probabykilling".

Sure this is a "philosophical" and/or "moral" debate, and that's why the vernacular is generally the preferred terminology. Where I see dishonesty is where you try to mix and confuse the two, like saying that a baby isn't alive when you mean it hasn't started it's social "life" yet. But 99% of people reading "an unborn baby isn't alive" will understand that in the biological sense, so it's dishonest to claim you are speaking in the philosophical sense when you didn't specify that sense.

Like all probabykilling advocates, you left something important out of your statement. You left out whose "quality of life" you were comapring to whose "life". You are comparing the value a pregnant woman's "quality of life" to the "life" of her baby. Thus you are saying that one human being has the right to take the life of another human being to benefit their own "quality of life".... which sounds suspiciously like what every bloodthirsty conqueror has said since the beginning of recorded history. You are justifying bloody violence to improve one's situation in life, which is the same moral standard that every robber has when he kills his victim.

That is an unprovable opinion, and I think you know it. No one knows when sentience begins, and no one with an ounce of morality would claim that they could justify killing an innocent human being based on that opinion anyway. EVERY unborn human baby will become a human adult if lucky, and that is the ONLY basis for judging WHAT is being killed in an abortion.

Just click on the "quote" link at the bottom of each post you wish to reply to, and add your reply in the dialogue box that comes up.

reply from: yoda

]http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM">Click!">http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM[/S

How does this have anything to do with abortion?

"W3C primarily pursues its mission through the creation of Web standards and guidelines."

reply from: ProChoice

I think it's between a married couple and God.

I do not believe in handing out contraception to unwed couples. I think they'd be less likely to fool around if they don't have that "safety" net.

Have you given thought to the idea that maybe
some people don't believe in your God? Or that they don't see anything "morally" wrong with pre-marital sexual acts? Contraceptions should be made avaliable no matter what you, or other people like, you believe. If you don't believe in it, don't partake in it. But let it be made a choice.

reply from: ProChoice

To the fetus decussion above me..

The concept fetus is used to denote the unborn human from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

A fetus is human in the sense that it contains human DNA, however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence away from it's host (ie mother). A being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman for its survival and cannot be called an independent being. A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. The fetus's permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another.

The bottom line is that a fetus is "life", just as an embryo, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights, for obvious reasons.

I therefore agree with Alina on how a fetus is "alive in the biological sense" and this further supports why I think abortion being legal shouldn't even be questionable. NO ONE has the right to tell a woman what she must keep inside her, even if it is against her will. It's absolutely ludicrous.

reply from: AshMarie88

*sigh* If only you could understand why we oppose abortion. We're the ones worried about the lives inside the women that are killed! No innocent being should be killed just because it's "unwanted" by a person! Now THAT is ridiculous!

I'm more worried about the human being mutilated from the abortion.

reply from: ProChoice

*sigh* If only you could understand why we oppose abortion. We're the ones worried about the lives inside the women that are killed! No innocent being should be killed just because it's "unwanted" by a person! Now THAT is ridiculous!

I'm more worried about the human being mutilated from the abortion.

I understand what your saying completely. Personally, if I found myself in a situation where I was unexpectedly pregnant with a baby I did not want, nor planned, to have, then I would think twice before preforming an abortion. But with my personal feelings aside, I feel that the right to an abortion should not be denied to the people. I mean sure you may not agree with it and would never partake it in, but what's to say someone else wants it as an option? How someone can disagree with that completely confuses me. That is like saying that the choice to speak your mind should be denied just because a few people believe in censorship.

reply from: Alina

Fair enough. I've been called worse names

Well, like i said, i personally perceive a difference between simply existing in the biological sense, and actually having a life (and all that pertains too, y'know - thinking, feeling, having a developed mind etc). In future i'll clarify - if you want i can refer to it as 'quality of life'.

If that's the way you choose to perceive it, then fair enough. Am i supporting abortion because i believe the womans quality of life should be held in more esteem than the existence of the fetus? Yes. Fine, suits me to a tee, obviously i see it through different eyes, but i'm not really one who's up for going round and round in circles arguing semantics over two perspectives that will never be reconclied.

While the fetus is in the body of the woman, and is entirely dependent (at the risk of causing offence - it's a parasitic relationship -though that is not saying the fetus IS a parasite, btw) upon her for survival i believe she should have a say over whether it stays or goes. No other person has the right to depend entirely upon the body of another person, regardless of whether or not the seperation results in the death of the dependent person. I don't see why pregnant women should be the exception.

Well, a fetus needs a brain for sentience. The neocortex, specifically. The neocortex doesn't begin to develop until the second trimester, so it's safe to say that prior to that sentience will not be achieved by the fetus. Then there's the whole 'pain perception' issue.

I do have morality, it's just different from your morality. I believe that abortion is perfectly justifiable if it's the wish of the woman. Though saying that it's sort of futile pushing the belief that abortion shouldn't happen, cause it does, and it always has done. In an ideal world there would be no such thing as unwanted pregnancy, though this isn't an ideal world, and women will continue to abort as they always have done, regardless of anybody else's moral objections. I believe that abortion should always be legal cause legal abortion actually saves more lives than it ends.

You're right in one respect -sentience (or lack thereof) has very little to do with my pro choice stance.

Thanks!

reply from: Alina

Hmmm, well i'm terrible with links -i'm a bit of a technophobe to be honest. Here's the address anyway:

http://www.un.org/geninfo/faq/factsheets/FS6.HTM

reply from: AshMarie88

Cencorship doesn't even compare to killing a human life!

reply from: ProChoice

Cencorship doesn't even compare to killing a human life!

I was using it as an example. Don't get all crazy.

reply from: AshMarie88

It does not apply to anything near the abortion debate.

reply from: ProChoice

It does not apply to anything near the abortion debate.

Didn't need to. It was an analogy

reply from: yoda

Your continued lies are absolutely disgusting. What do you hope to gain by presenting yourself as totally unreliable?

Information Please: http://www.infoplease.com/ hu'man be'ing 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species

MSN Encarta Dictionary http://dictionary.msn.com/ hu·man be·ing (plural hu·man be·ings) noun 1. member of the human species: a member of the species to which men and women belong. Latin name Homo sapiens

be·ing
1. The state or quality of having existence. 2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing. b. The totality of all things that exist. 3. a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf) b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence. c. One's basic or essential nature; personality. http://www.bartleby.com/61/

reply from: yoda

No, that's like saying that even if someone thinks that child abuse is moral, it should be illegal because it harms an innocent human being. Abortion should be illegal for the same reason.

reply from: ProChoice

No, that's like saying that even if someone thinks that child abuse is moral, it should be illegal because it harms an innocent human being. Abortion should be illegal for the same reason.

Apparantly the judicial courts, and many american citizens, understand that child abuse and abortion have to be approached separated. I mean, seeing as how child abuse does involve an actually being and abortion is including a fetus.

But think what you like. I'll be happy the day Bush is out of office and a liberal politician steps in and takes over this nonsense of trying to over-turn Roe v Wade. But think as you will.

reply from: yoda

But probably none more accurate.

That would be TONS more honest and greatly appreciated!

Agreed.

Then you refuse to acknowledge the uniqueness of gestation in the human experience. It is not only universal and manditory for EVERY SINGLE HUMAN WHO EVER LIVED, it is totally out of the control of the victim of abortion. To me that's reason enough to think that all your hypothetical analogies to it are pure BS.

What does the nucleus of each one celled animal do? Do you have any evidence of what goes on inside a one celled animal? Or will you admit that no one knows?

Yes, I understand that you think that a simple wish is sufficient justification for the killing of an innocent baby.

So then WHY do you and the other probabykilling "invaders" keep bringing it up? Just for kicks?

reply from: yoda

But you feel perfectly justified to wail and cry about "bad analogies" after that one?

reply from: teddi

Alina said:

Because a pregnant woman is a parent.

The law says parents are obligated to provide adequate, age appropriate care for their children.

Therefore, it's very reasonable to say, a woman cannot terminate her parental rights (Note: the ability TO GIVE UP one's parental obligations is not a RIGHT of any kind, for the BENEFIT of the children it is ALLOWED) in a manner which will bring harm, harm of death to her child. Or I'll say it another way, therefore CHILDREN do have a right to be attached to their mother (or host mother, who by contract has agreed before hand to carry the child). And therefore, this is an absolutely equal right as it means you, I, and every human who has ever existed, whether male or female has had that right. (whereas your "right to remove people" only applies to pregnant mothers)

The law allows for a hiearchy of rights- I state that the right to live, which grants equal right to every living human, born and unborn, trumps a woman's right to _____ .

Women do NOT "control" their bodies thru abortion. They can only manipulate things to an outcome they want. Ask women how they feel after they've lost their uterus completely due to abortion complications. Or had their uterus perforated, or their cervix lacerated, or went septic after an infection from the procedure. Or the women raped or sexually assualted by their good abortion Dr. ONLY women who DO self-abort can lay any claim to "controlling" their OWN bodies. If they rely on a third party- they just lost any true "control" over the situation, didn't they?

And does this control even exist? Are a woman's right violated when she's born with a uterus that doesn't work? And are her reproductive rights being "denied" when her ovaries won't ovulate if she suffers from say, PCOS? There is NO CONTROLLING our own bodies anyway- it's a fallacy. gawd knows if I had some claim to "controlling" my body I would have opted to skip to pregnancies with severe hyperemesis and would have retained one of my internal organs (gallbladder) and kept the good function thereof (liver, kidney conditions, plus pancreatitis). Wow, who can I sue?

The fact the child is dependent upon her, by their physical relationship of pregnancy, does not somehow grant a woman extra parental rights to have her unborn killed. It is a physical manifestation, biological proof, that she needs to provide care for her own offspring. I claim EVERY LIVING HUMAN has a right to age appropriate parental care, I claim we ALL have a right to mom's uterus because that's how life can exist. And if you have no life, you have no rights at all.

I take the pro-choice version to it's utmost extreme. Let's say we all (women) just agree we do have a right to abort and we all decide it's what we all want to do with all our pregnancies. Aside from the fact that w/in about 115 years our race would cease to exist, the quality of life for EVERYONE would substantially decline in the meantime.
That's the most extreme result of your death right.

Let's take the pro-life version to it's utmost extreme. The world goes on and the quality of life is not majorly impacted, and in fact, may improve as the human race would get all possible contributions from the geniuses, researchers, who would otherwise have been aborted.

reply from: yoda

You do love your big lies, don't you?

http://www.bartleby.com/61/
be·ing
1. The state or quality of having existence. 2. a. Something, such as an object, an idea, or a symbol, that exists, is thought to exist, or is represented as existing. b. The totality of all things that exist. 3. a. A person: “The artist after all is a solitary being” (Virginia Woolf) b. All the qualities constituting one that exists; the essence. c. One's basic or essential nature; personality.

Dictionary.com ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby ) ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus.

iNFOPLEASE.com ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html ) ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus.

reply from: ProChoice

But you feel perfectly justified to wail and cry about "bad analogies" after that one?

No I don't feel perfectly justified, especially seeing as how I didn't "wail and cry" like he did

reply from: ProChoice

You do love your big lies, don't you?

How is it a "lie" to call a fetus not a human being? They don't think, breath, act, eat, etc without a woman's womb. And that womb, as far as I know, is not yours to decide upon. Get that through your head.

reply from: bradensmommy

Don't you support our troops? If you supported our troops, you wouldn't use a vibrator. Instead, you would save up all of your sexual energy for when your husband came home. That way, you could produce many more citizens for Mother America. Or don't you love America?

j/k

Yeah, haha, I'm laughing....

I'm not the typical military wife who is a baby machine....

reply from: Gina

Birth control? Oh come now. I realize that some on the lunatic fringe want to legislate the mating habits of every American in this country, but do people truly think that this is feasible? If BC is against one's religion, delightful. Nobody is forcing them to use it. Feel free to bear a kid a year (what do some call this, a "quiver-full"?) if it makes you feel like you've done God's duty.

reply from: Wanderer

Ok I have a question but just to be clear I am not trying to start any sort of argument cause that would be pointless. No one is going to find any sort of legitimacy in any argument that doesn't concur with their own opinion. I find my self wondering if you are concerned with the suffering of babies that are aborted why are you not also concerned with the suffering of the livestock that you comsume on a daily basis? Animals are just as capable of physical pain as unborn babies are are able to be emotional tramatized as well. The only excuse I can think of for anyone not to care about this pain is a religious one and because I am an athiest I can't relate to it. Can anyone explain this to me?

By the way treating other posters who disagree with you as idiots is rude, you may not like their opinion but it doesn't mean they are not as intelligent as you.

reply from: MaleNurse

I've pondered this myself.
All I can tell you is that it IS religeous.
And Natural.
Have you ever seen a lion take down a gazelle
http://www.spohr-wildlife.ch/galerie_en/lion%20with%20gazelle.jpg

reply from: battynatty2003

im veggie so i cant say i eat livestock

reply from: yoda

From what source did you get your information on our eating habits?

reply from: yoda

Okay, I'm going to assume that either you can't read, and someone else is typing this for you, or you have a blind spot whenever you come across a linked definition posted here.

Either way, you are much too stubborn to be reasoned with.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Philosophically, I can see that every living being has an intrinsic value, that no creature is any more or less deserving of life and happiness than any other. A cow equals a human equals an ant equals a tree equals an amoeba, etc. As such, I sometimes question why I even care about the abortion issue. How is the baby's life any more important than the lives of the plants and animals the mother will consume to sustain her child? How can anyone make a judgement call as to what should live and what should die? The only answer I can find is, "I am human, and as such my interests lie primarily with human kind."

reply from: yoda

Omnivorians sometimes say that since we are animals, and cannot live without eating other living things, it follows that we ought to eat that for which our digestive tracks are designed: namely a mixed diet of both meat and vegatable. Not saying that is necessarily true, but it's another way to look at it.

On the other hand, we don't eat human babies, do we?

reply from: Wanderer

It's a generalization, most people eat meat. If you don't eat meat then you'd be excluded from that group. As for the comment about your interests lying mostly with human kind because you are human, A large part of what makes us human, what makes us superior supposedly to animals is that we feel on a deeper level then animals, we feel compassion. You think of unborn fetuses as if they are on the same level as fully matured adults. I feel that animals in are just as worthy of living as we are, they don't deserve to suffer any more then any person. So to me any person who eats meat is on the same level as people who have or give abortions are to most of you. I'll admit I believe in abortion though maybe thats a hypocrisy on my part, I don't believe in late term abortions in most cases but its hard for me to think of a tiny dinosaur looking thing as a person. As an athiest I don't believe it has a soul, to me it's not yet a person.

reply from: ThunderKitten

Well, the way I see it is that just because an animal is going to be killed doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a good life. What stopped me from eating cows, chicken, etc. was not the fact that they die for our dinner, but how horribly they are treated in life. I had known about that for awhile, but the last straw for me is when I read in the newspaper that cows are fed chicken poop. I still eat seafood, though, so don't call me a vegetarian. I hate when people call me that- I'm just as evil as the rest of you meat eaters. I did consider giving it up for a time, but ya' know I've got so many darned allergies that I've got to eat something.

If the ranchers, etc. did clean up their practices and treat animals with respect, at that point I still wouldn't eat them. I'd be happy if changes were made, but I just can't go back to eating that stuff.

I don't know, somehow living in a society where one's own children are expendable doesn't make me too comfortable. I mean, one's own children are supposed to be the most precious living beings of all to their parents. But if even they are not worthy of defending from death, how important am I or you or anyone else?

Every once in awhile someone will argue that, well if the fertilized egg is alive and human then what about the sprem and egg seperately? I just say that it's impracticle for every man to have ten million or more children a day, so I'll stick with fertilization as the "point of no return", morally speaking.

BTW, I'm a hard-core athiest.

reply from: yoda

What kind of "level" are you talking about? Size, age, mental abilities, or what?

So you insist that looks are what make us human? People who are disfigured are not "as human" as the rest of us? And if you're an athiest, why are you talking about "souls"?

Oh, by the way, here's some interesting definitions of "person":

per·son (plural peo·ple per·sons (formal)) noun 1. human being: an individual human being 2. human’s body: a human being’s body, often including the clothing
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861725217/person.html

per•son Pronunciation: (pûr'sun),-n. 2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing. 6. the body of a living human being, sometimes including the clothes being worn: He had no money on his person. http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0584644.html

Main Entry: per·son 1 : HUMAN: 4 a archaic : bodily appearance b : the body of a human being; http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=person&x=16&y=16

Person: Pronunciation puhr sEn Definition 1. a human being. Definition 2. the body of a human being. Example the clothes on his person. http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=person&matchtype=exact

Definition person noun [C] plural people or FORMAL OR LAW persons
1 a man, woman or child:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=59039&dict=CALD

reply from: yoda

That's an excellent point, and well made. BTW, I'm a "hard-core" agnostic.

reply from: Alina

Personhood is defined by law, in Europe the rights associated with personhood are awarded at birth (fetii are recognised as non-persons by the European Court of Human Rights). I realise it may not be the same in the US, however.

reply from: Tam

Please don't paint all of us with the same broad brush. I don't consume animals--and it is actually the fact that I don't support violence of any kind against any living being that was largely what led me to a pro-life position.

In other words, turn the question around: how can anyone who recognizes the moral wrong of killing animals not recognize that killing unborn babies is just as bad?

reply from: yoda

Yes, legal personhood is defined by law. "Person", however, is also defined by it's use in the vernacular for the past several centuries.

And in the vernacular, "person" is commonly defined as the body of a human being. Since unborn babies are of the same species as their mothers and fathers, they ARE human beings.

reply from: Alina

Abortion is a clash of interests. In this clash of interests i value the woman over the fetus, i consider forcing women to gestate (assuming that they won't seek an illegal abortion) worse than abortion.

reply from: yoda

Killing animals for food is also a clash of interests. Since we don't normally eat human babies, that excuse can't be used for killing babies. So we are left with killing babies to preserve our lifestyles.... a totally unworthy moral equation, IMO.

reply from: Tam

Actually, there is evidence that humans are more similar to herbivores than to omnivores. We are not meant to eat the dead flesh of other animals--human or otherwise.

Source: http://www.vegsource.com/veg_faq/comparative.htm

reply from: Alina

Abortion is a clash of interests regarding who has more rights over the woman's body. Either the woman has autonmy over her body and its resources, or she is subordinate to the fetus which is entirely dependent upon her.

As i have said - i value the lives (lifestyles - thinking, feeling, walking, talking etc) of women over non sentient, non viable, utterly depedent fetii.

reply from: Tam

That's not true, in any sense but one: they are (and this is fact, not opinion) living human beings.

There are those who believe it's just to intentionally kill other human beings under certain circumstances. I am not among them.

I pretty much agree with you, which may surprise you. I don't spend a great deal of time talking about meat on this forum, which is dedicated to a different topic (abortion, obviously), but I consider those who slaughter animals to be morally on the same level as those who slaughter humans (babies or youths or adults).

Well, I do understand how hard it is to empathize with those who look different from oneself. That is the cause of racism, and a lot of other problems besides, including the problem that people don't care much about babies until they start to "look like babies"--forgetting, perhaps, that every human being alive today once looked just that way, because that appearance was the perfect appearance for us at that time.

Appearances change over time--we cannot allow mere appearance to be a criterion for killing a human being. Obviously, there must be something else behind your statement--is it really that the appearance of a very young child seems odd to you, and therefore you find it hard to accept the fact that this very young child is as much a human being as you or I, or is it more a question of the fact that the child is very young and has so much development still to take place?

Well, personhood is an interesting concept, and there are ways in which a newborn is not "yet" a person, but that doesn't justify killing newborn children. But we are talking about killing, in the world, over a hundred thousand innocent, living, human children, every day. That is a problem IMO. So is meat consumption! I wish everyone would cease killing other beings, period.

reply from: MaleNurse

I'll start by saying there is religeon in my response.
You can draw your own conclusions from your own intuitive thoughts.
And you don't have to be ultra religeous to do so.
The difference between man and animal:
Man has a soul
Animal does not

When God created man, (in God's image) he burned the concept of "eternity" into his heart.
However you consider "eternity" as infinite in time or endless existance --> Humans have a grasp of this concept. We as humans CAN imagine or conceptualize what "eternity" is. Now I know this would be a great leap, but stay with me - animals can NOT understand the concept of eternity. (to this point there's not too much religeon - I consider this more "fact" than "opinion")

The religeous part:
The existance of the "soul" is evidenced by our understanding of what "eternity" is. The soul is not limited by the boundries of time. The soul is our eternal connection to God. The body returns to the ground from which it came(same as the animals), and the soul returns to God who gave it. (Not the case with animals).
I could say something off topic here about heaven and hell but I won't
I told ya this would be religeous !
supported by:
Ecclesiastes 3; verse 9 and verse 18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclesiastes%203&version=31

The murder in the act of abortion is quite different than killing a cow for a porterhouse.

reply from: Tam

Good for you for being honest about the fact that those who eat flesh are not vegetarians. I have heard so many people say they're "vegetarian--oh, but I still eat fish." LOL

Right on.

I hear that.

It's the only place it makes sense to draw a line--where on one side of the line there is no child, but on the other side of the line is a child. At first, the child is very small, but s/he grows! Once a living, growing child exists, there's no point at which I would say that we can draw a line on that child's life, saying that on one side is a person worth protection and love, and on the other side is a piece of garbage worth nothing, to be disposed of at the whim of his/her mother.

reply from: scopia1982

I have no problem with the BCP. The BCP can be used for actauly medicainal purposes such as controlling a womans cycle or easing long/painful periods. I take it for these very reasons and that is all. I have no problem with the Morning after pill been giving ONLY to RAPE victims by a hopsital. I dont think it should be available to the general public b/c it would encourage people not to take preventive measures and hence preganancies would not be a big concern. But the rise in the rate of STDS becuase people would see no need for condoms, hence no protection would be there.

reply from: Wanderer

I don't believe either animals or people have souls which is why I used the word souls. I don't think children are expendable it's just to me a fetus in the first few months of pregnancy isn't a child. My reasons are my own and I do not feel bad about them. I feel I am moral person who tries not to harm any person or animals but I am flawed as is everyone. Maybe it is a clash of interests to support animals right but not the rights of unborn fetuses. I feel that some people aren't meant to be mothers maybe myself included. I thought recently that I could be pregnant and it scared the crap out of me. I am too selfish to have a child and too selfish to give my child up for adoption. A child would ruin all my dreams for the future at this point in my life. Is this a selfish way of thinking? Certainly but we are selfish creatures. I could not cope with the responsibility of a child and I've seen people raise children who should have never been allowed to.

reply from: MaleNurse

Do you understand the concept of eternity?
Do you feel animals understand eternity?

What do you feel it IS?

Correct. Why do you not afford a right to life to the unborn fetus? Are animals better than humans?

Suck it up ! and get tough ! You'd be surprised where determination can take you. A child doesn't ruin dreams for the future. It provides a motivation to make them happen. Someone to share your achievement with, someone who can say "I'm proud of you mom". Certainly it could be more difficult, but nothing great comes easy. I have 5 children, and I'm in my 3rd year of med-school. Where there's a will - there's a way. We are selfish creatures when we choose to be so. We are loving creatures when we choose to be so. The determining factor is "fear". Fear of the unknown, what will happen, how will you manage? None of those dreams you have will be without obstacles. You think you've got a clear path now (without children) - guess again. I can't recall in human history's greatest achievements where having children stood in the way.
Quiters never win, and winners never quit

reply from: Louise

Actually, the pill doesn't destroy the fertalized egg. the pill acts primarily by stopping ovulation or thickening cervical mucas. It also thins the lining of the womb to prevent implantation if the first functions fail so the egg isn't destroyed, it's unable to implant.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

Which is starving it to death.

reply from: MaleNurse

please elaborate if possible I don't understand

reply from: tabithamarcotte

please elaborate if possible I don't understand

If the zygote can't implant inside the uterus, it can't receive the nutrients it needs to grow and develop. So when the pill prevents the newly created human to implant, it effectively causes an abortion by killing the zygote.

That's just my reasoning.

reply from: Louise

It doesn't 'starve' it to death, it simply doesn't allow it to implant so that no pregnancy occurs. It's passed, simple, if that is indeed the way the pill has worked.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

If the zygote can't get the proper nutrients it needs to grow, that's indeed "starving" it to death.

reply from: Louise

It cannot be "starved" when it's never received it in the first place. The fact is that many many zygotes do not implant, whether using the pill or not. If you believe that's a good enough reason to not use contraception then, go ahead, have as many kids as you possibly can. However, at least try to appreciate that some hold their own lives above that of a possible zygote. Banning contraception would only lead to a rise of abortions.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I've never heard anything about zygotes not making it to the uterine wall...but whatever.

Banning contraception would make people think twice before they went off and had "fun," just like banning abortion would. They wouldn't have a "preventive plan" or a "Plan B."

reply from: yoda

We're getting a bit off the subject here, but have you ever heard of Homo Robustus?

reply from: yoda

I just love how the human warmth and compassion comes through in your posts. "Subordinate to the fetus which is entirely dependent upon her." I suppose you meant "subordinate to the LIFE of the fetus"? Yes, in born humans all other rights are subordinate to the life of our innocent fellow human beings, but in the case of unborn human beings, their lives aren't worth warm spit. What do you rate them, about 2/3rds of a "real person", or maybe 4/5th?

I gotta love how you say that........ your lifestyle over someone else's life......... and then you add "utterly dependent" as if that was like calling them comunists, or white trash, or something...... what is it about "utter dependence" that disgusts you so much?

reply from: yoda

You are starting off by lying to yourself and to us. We already know that the word child applies to unborn humans without exception. Would you like to see documentation of that? Would you like to explain how you can justify killing a baby by saying you don't use a particular word to describe it?

Your "morality" is very strange indeed. It is indeed hypocritical to protect animals but not your own kind in gestation.

True, many women are not good mothers, and many of them don't want to be mothers. I have no quarrel with that, but when they wait until they are pregnant to decide they don't want motherhood, they have waited too late to get out of it morally. So then some of them get out of it immorally, by killing their babies.

If that's what you're supporting, then your morality is certainly not for me.

reply from: yoda

It did recieve food from it's mother when it formed as an egg, as all eggs do. On the other hand, there is nothing in the definition of "starve" that refers to an initial feeding, so I'll just assume that you made that up. If I'm wrong, please post the source of your definition, okay?

Main Entry: starve
Pronunciation: 'stärv
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): starved; starv·ing
Etymology: Middle English sterven to die, starve, from Old English steorfan to die; akin to Old High German sterban to die, Lithuanian starinti to stiffen -- more at STARE
intransitive senses
1 a : to perish from lack of food b : to suffer extreme hunger
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/starve

reply from: Gina

What makes you think contraception is needed in order to have this "fun" you speak of? Sister, in my world, which is happily a non-fundamentalist one, "fun" is what you make of it. It doesn't necessary take two to tango.

Unless of course, in your world, you plan on chopping off everyone's hands as well?

reply from: ThunderKitten

You are starting off by lying to yourself and to us. We already know that the word child applies to unborn humans without exception. Would you like to see documentation of that? Would you like to explain how you can justify killing a baby by saying you don't use a particular word to describe it?

You know, sometimes my fiance and I will argue about something, and the more minor the supporting points become, the longer and harder we'll argue. We never get anywhere, because we're BOTH absolutely convinced that we're the one who is right, and that if we just argue long enough and hard enough, eventually the other person will realize this. It took me three years to notice the pattern. Haven't figured out how to break it, but it does drive both of us crazy.

yodavater, I think the problem here is that she doesn't recognize it as a baby. What may be obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to someone else. Maybe you could explain how exactly you see it as a baby? To me, once it's concieved it's a baby, but I don't know how to put my feelings it into words.

reply from: Louise

I love it when people refer to dictionaries to attempt to prove some lame point.
Personally I prefer english dictionaries (i.e not american) or biological or legal ones. Pick up a book once in a while, it really broadens the mind.

This whole "baby" thing - can people understand that "baby" is a stage of development that follows trhe "fetus" stage after birth. People do indeed refer to their unborn as babies, I refered to one of mine as peanut, doesn't make it so. The fact is that it's a zygote, embryo or fetus when talking about abortion. If talking about "babykilling" then it's infanticide which I don't think you'll find anyone in support of.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

What makes you think contraception is needed in order to have this "fun" you speak of? Sister, in my world, which is happily a non-fundamentalist one, "fun" is what you make of it. It doesn't necessary take two to tango.

Unless of course, in your world, you plan on chopping off everyone's hands as well?

Contraception is "needed" because it prevents a "dreaded complication" called pregnancy. It's not hard to figure out.

reply from: Gina

I think my inference just flew right over your head. In that case, and in the words of the immortal Emily Latella..."never mind".

reply from: MaleNurse

No, No. Yoda is correct. Having been in this forum for a while, we often encounter interpretational differences on word use ect. It is often helpful to site from the Dicshunary.

Also, I think Yoda is pretty well read. You haven't been here long enough to make that assumption.
Just a little tip.

reply from: Tam

Great, then you should be able to acknowledge that the unborn human is a "child" as defined in the OED ("world's most respected English dictionary"). I quote here the first listed meaning (1a) of the word:

I'm just asking because of your strong feelings about the word "baby"--would "child" make more sense to you? This is not to say that I agree with you that "baby" doesn't apply to unborn children; however, since "baby" and "child" are equivalent terms, it's enough (for me) if you acknowledge that "child" is the most proper term for the unborn human.

Just for the record, here is the OED 1a entry for "baby":

Note the word "usually" which means "not always"--in other words, even according to the OED, "baby" works just fine for the unborn child, even though most of the time, "baby" refers to born babies.

reply from: Louise

I don't believe that I've posted anywhere that it's not a "child"

"Baby" is inaccurate and used to emotionally manipulate the situation, that's why I have "strong feelings" about it. It seems to be ignored by most.
Personally, I don't particularly mind what people call it, as long as they don't brandish me a "babykiller".
Biologically a fetus is not a baby, if people don't accept that then that's their perogative. The fact is that bilogically the "unborn baby" is a fetus, wanted or otherwise

reply from: Tam

Not according to the OED. What is your criterion for making that statement?

If you kill a baby, that is an appropriate term. If not, it is not. If you support the killing of babies, I see no reason pro-babykilling doesn't fit, but if you don't actually kill any, then "babykiller" doesn't fit.

What is the meaning of the word "baby"?

Actually, the unborn baby passes through several stages of development, right? One is the fetal stage.

reply from: MaleNurse

You use the terms "inaccurate" and "emotionally manipulate"
Please perform a self-assessment.
Is it possible you are trying to comfort your own emotions by using scientific terminology.
You said you didn't want to be branded as a "babykiller"
Maybe "fetuskiller" is more comfortable
Maybe "embryokiller" is even more comfortable
How about "Blob-of-cells-killer" You'd feel very comfortable with this.
Now who has emotionally manipulated the situation?

As Tam points out, the Term "baby" is quite accurate

reply from: Louise

Biological fact.

I've never killed a "baby". A fetus, yes, but a baby - nope. I'd be in prison if i'd done that. Killing babies is illegal and they're born, sentient, individuals so it's wrong.

A young person, particularly one who hasn't yet begun to walk or talk.
The phase of development after birth

I get tired of typing blastocyte/zygote/embryo/fetus out. The fetal stage is the longest of the pregnancy that begins at the end of the 8th week and ends at birth.

No cigar!

I'm not emotionally manipulating the situation. I'm a woman who has had an abortion, how does that fit or, if you must, then "fetuskiller" would be the most accurate as that was the developmental stage I was at.
I never use the term "blob of cells", i'm not retarded as to human development so unless I'm calling all people blobs of cells also then that is not how I refer to embryos etc...

For people with NO idea, I guess it is. I wouldn't have passed any exams with that mentality but hey

reply from: tabithamarcotte

For people with NO idea, I guess it is. I wouldn't have passed any exams with that mentality but hey

Riiiight...

reply from: Tam

A young person, particularly one who hasn't yet begun to walk or talk.

Where did you get this definition?

For people with NO idea, I guess it is. I wouldn't have passed any exams with that mentality but hey

Wow, you sure would like to think that you're so smart and I'm a terrible fool. Now let's sort out what on earth gives you that idea.

Here's a question: when you and I disagree about the meaning of a word, is there some authority to which we could refer to settle the dispute? You have indicated a preference for English dictionaries. I share that preference, and use the OED, the most respected and authoritative English dictionary in the world. According to that dictionary, the word "baby" can absolutely apply to an unborn child. What, in your opinion, supercedes that fact?

reply from: yoda

Yes, I could explain my POV, and my feelings about the word "baby". But IMO that would be a bit arrogant of me, so instead I rely on the very handy online dictionaries for guidance. I know that's probably a bit old fashioned, and maybe even not politically correct to be so yielding to the authority of others, and so "un-creative" with my mother tongue, but I just can't help myself. I like dictonaries when I want to know the way society in general periceves a word, not what it might mean to some anonymous poster on this forum. Thanks for your suggestion, but I guess I'm just stubborn that way....

End of speech, here's what the real experts say about that word:

MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby )

Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby )

iNFOPLEASE.com ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html )

INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: yoda

We here in America love our American dictionaries. Upstart colonists, you know?

You seem to revel in misinformation.

IF "baby" WERE a developmental stage that came AFTER "fetus", it would be so LISTED, and you would have LINKED us to such a LIST........ but you DIDN'T, so that must mean you know you are lying.......

And you seem to revel in lies, so go on and have your fun.

MSN-Encarta Online:ba·by noun (plural ba·bies) 2. unborn child: a child that is still in the womb ( http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=baby )

Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby )

iNFOPLEASE.com ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html )

INTELLIHEALTH: "Month 2: Measures 14-20mm from crown to rump. The baby's heart, although not fully formed, begins to beat and is visible. Medical content reviewed by the Faculty of the Harvard Medical School. Last updated August 14, 2004.
http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH?t=25666&p=~br,RNM|~st,331|~r,WSRNM000|~b,*|

reply from: yoda

And you continue with your outright lies.

The word "BABY" is in NO WAY a scientific/biological word, it is a term of the vernacular and as such is subject to the same rules of definition as all other terms of the vernacular.

GIVE IT UP! You are a PROVEN LIAR!

reply from: yoda

Biological fact.
How very ODD that you did not link us to ANY website with "proof" of your idiotic assertion! Could it be that you are lying through your teeth again?

Then you are indeed a BABYKILLER..........

Dictionary.com ba·by (bb) n. pl. ba·bies 2. An unborn child; a fetus. ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=baby )

iNFOPLEASE.com ba•by pronunciation: (bA'bE), -n. 5. a human fetus. ( http://www.infoplease.com/ipd/A0330371.html )

reply from: Louise

That wasn't the implication. Apologies if you took it that way but I wouldn't have passed my exams at university had I interchanged the word "fetus" and "baby"
(and my definitons come from my lecturers, the facts I've been taught amogst various texts and, if talking dictionaries, I tend to use biological ones or the cambridge advanced learners if looking for a plain old dictionary)

Biological fact will do. Biology supercedes the OED (which isn't the "best" of english dictionaries)

Having been born and raised in England I prefer my native dictinary (and spelling)

As for "lying" I do not lie. I go on the knowledge that I have been taught whilst studying (as opposed to online dictionaries). I do not need to provide rediculous links to encarta, I can give you contact to my university where you can enlist and study for degrees in biology which may indeed help your understanding.

reply from: bradensmommy

wow, my assumptions (and having a step-aunt who is British) are right about y'all being so dammed cocky. You (and her) think your "people" are more wonderful than anyone else. She thinks British slang, words, food, people, dogs, cats, ect, ect are better. I think you all need a freakin reality check.

And BTW, if you read medical books you'd know that a fetus is a human being and abortion is killing.

reply from: tabithamarcotte

OH. MY. GOSH. You're BRITISH??? That changes everything! You're "kind" of biology is so much better than the lame American biology that lies, lies, lies!

Anyway, we don't need your Cambridge or Oxford in order to be "educated elites," thanks.

reply from: mybodymylifegetoverit

lovely generalisation there

reply from: AshMarie88

No! Pro-choicers reading medical books? Why should they?!

reply from: CAS

They wouldn't, but if if people are suggesting that other can only have sex to reproduce, that would mean sterile people should not have sex.

CAS

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

Louise says she's killed a fetus but never killed a baby. That's like saying, "I've killed a youngster but never killed a teenager". Is killing a younger human being somehow less bad than killing an older one? Doesn't the younger child have even more to lose than the older child (more years of life).

reply from: ThunderKitten

mybodymylifegetoverit, I'm curious, what exactly is it about motherhood that made you pro choice?

reply from: Louise

I don't think i'm "better" than anyone else. I don't generalise about americans, why do it about the British?

I am aware the fetus is human, it's not a different species. I'm aware abortion kills that fetus/human.

I didn't say that british biology was "better". It's what i've been taught and I trust in my education. I also didn't say you needed to be Oxbridge educated to be an "elite"

Because, contrary to poular belief, we're not ignorant to human biology. Just because I know what the fetus is and what stage of development it's at doesn't mean my stance is changed.

Both a youngster and a teenager exist independantly so thre's a marked difference

When it's an embryo or fetus then yes.

reply from: yoda

What a lame excuse for an argument. Scientific exams require scientific terms, NONE OF WHICH invalidate the correctness of vernacular terms when used in a vernacular CONTEXT. Am I going too fast for you?

Then I gave you too much credit. Your conclusions about your "knowledge" are self-delusional and megalomanical.

reply from: yoda

Excellent point. Quibbling over a label is like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, you still have innocent human blood on your hands.

reply from: yoda

And the moon was once thought to be made of green cheese, and that's very different also.

Could you possibly be more irrelevant? Are you really so permeated with the desire to justify killing babies that you fabricate connections that not only aren't there, but are ludicrous on their face?

"Independence" has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the humanity of unborn human babies.

reply from: NorthStar

Eating tasty food and swimming in the ocean do not hurt anyone else. Creating unintended pregnancies does have the potential to hurt other people.

If you are willing to accept the consequences of eating tasty food, I have no problem with you doing it. Likewise, if you are willing to accept the consequences of sexual intercouse, I have no problem with you doing it. But, if you are engaging in sexual intercourse without contemplating the potential reproductive result, you are, by definition, not taking responsibility for that action.

reply from: NorthStar

ORGASMS - they come highly recommended!

In other words, they want the benefits that derive from sexual intercourse but they want someone else to suffer the negative consequences. Just like rapists.

reply from: Tam

ORGASMS - they come highly recommended!

In other words, they want the benefits that derive from sexual intercourse but they want someone else to suffer the negative consequences. Just like rapists.

Whoa. Great analogy!


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics