Home - List All Discussions

Should abortion always be illegal?

by: tomlongson

I am the lead developer for a new site aimed at intelligent public policy debate, and looking for conservatives who would like to discuss abortion policy in the United States.
Should abortion always be illegal? Do you think there ever should be exceptions?
Please join our conversation:
http://stopthespin.com/issue/474/

Thanks, looking forward to reading your pro-life arguments!
Sincerely,
Tom Longson
stopthespin.com

reply from: AshMarie88

NO! And the only exceptions I feel comfy with are uterine cancer and tubal/ectopic pregnancy! For other reasons

reply from: Yuuki

I feel it should only be allowed to save the mother's life, period, and only after all other timely solutions have been explored.

reply from: BossMomma

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.

reply from: Shenanigans

I know this person is just out to plug their own interests, but still.
ALWAYS illegal.
With perhaps, if only to appease the idiots in the populace, a decriminlisation so doctors don't get imprisoned if they perform a child killing for health exception. But have strict rules for "life of mother", say, a panel of doctors debate the pros and cons of killing the child and the reality of the mother's life risk, kinda how they do when they're sorting out who gets a deceased teen's heart.
With that said, I'll only be happy when abortion is completely banned, women won't be penalised in education or career for being pregnant, that the govt will fund decent health care - to ensure prevention and quick treatment of any pregnancy related illnesses.

reply from: nancyu

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort

reply from: Yuuki

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy in a process that kills the unborn. Until implantation, you are not pregnant. It has not been proven which, if any brands of hormonal birth control cause a failure to implant, or how often. The rate is, however far LOWER than during unprotected sex. You are putting your child at purposeful risk MORE SO during unprotected sex than when using birth control. An embryo in a petri dish is clearly not implanted anywhere; though of course we should not purposely kill it. New ESCR techniques can harvest stem cells without killing the embryo, so I don't understand how that's even similar to an abortion at all.

reply from: xnavy

i have had 3 children, the first one unplanned and i don't believe abortion should be legal, unless the mother is going to die. i think the
doctor should do everything human possible to save both lives

reply from: scopia19822

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .

reply from: nancyu

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy in a process that kills the unborn. Until implantation, you are not pregnant. It has not been proven which, if any brands of hormonal birth control cause a failure to implant, or how often. The rate is, however far LOWER than during unprotected sex. You are putting your child at purposeful risk MORE SO during unprotected sex than when using birth control. An embryo in a petri dish is clearly not implanted anywhere; though of course we should not purposely kill it. New ESCR techniques can harvest stem cells without killing the embryo, so I don't understand how that's even similar to an abortion at all.
Whatever...you are pro killing of unborn children.

reply from: BossMomma

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort
bullshyt artist

reply from: BossMomma

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.

reply from: scopia19822

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.
So you think that options to try and save both should not be looked into? A tubal pregnancy or a ded child inutero has to be removed. With all of the advancements in medical technology this argument is almost moot. I was giving my answer to this question. I think if "abortion" has to be legal than it should only be so to remove a tubal pregnancy or a dead child inutero and I will concede to stop bleeding from a trauma as long as efforts were made to save both. You dont care for my religion no more than I care for yours. However I have a right to talk about my fiath on this board and how it pertains to abortion just like you do yours. As it is my faith that shapes my world view and right now my faith is really being tested...

reply from: Yuuki

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy in a process that kills the unborn. Until implantation, you are not pregnant. It has not been proven which, if any brands of hormonal birth control cause a failure to implant, or how often. The rate is, however far LOWER than during unprotected sex. You are putting your child at purposeful risk MORE SO during unprotected sex than when using birth control. An embryo in a petri dish is clearly not implanted anywhere; though of course we should not purposely kill it. New ESCR techniques can harvest stem cells without killing the embryo, so I don't understand how that's even similar to an abortion at all.
Whatever...you are pro killing of unborn children.
If you could ever prove that, yu'd have a point. But you can't.
Anyone who has sex inherently approves of killing the unborn, since in most cases of unprotected sex, IF a child is conceived it will most likely die before or shortly after implantation. By having sex, you are automatically consenting to this. Sex is endangering this child's life. And you are, on top of that, doing absolutely NOTHING to prevent its death. Birth control prevents ovulation in up to 98% of all cases. Not using birth control prevents ovulation in 0% of cases. It is just simple arithmetic that a woman on birth control is going to have fewer released eggs and thus fewer fertilized eggs and thus fewer chances for a failed implantation or an early miscarriage. A woman who is not on birth control will ovulate nearly every month; and if she has sex just as many times as the woman on birth control, her chances of fertilization and early miscarriage/failure to implant are hundreds of times higher than the woman on birth control.
Is birth control for everyone? No. Some women react badly to it. But the majority of women do just fine on it. I personally react badly to Azithromycin, an antibiotic. But just because I experienced awful cramping and gas pains doesn't mean it should be removed from the market.
If you are a woman who wants to be sexually active but not get pregnant, I consider birth control a very responsible choice, especially if you do not have a reliable enough cycle or enough time during the day to deal with NFP.
But I also feel that no matter what, if you are sexually active, you should be open to the possibility of pregnancy. It happens despite our best efforts to prevent it. If you do become pregnant, there is now someone else in the picture. Thankfully, birth control has no ill effects on the unborn - it's designed to either work, or do no harm at all. That means it doesn't cause miscarriages or deformations or anything like that. Once you are pregnant, there is someone else in the picture now, and your actions created them, whether on purpose or not. An unexpected pregnancy can be unexpected joy. I love that phrase

reply from: AshMarie88

I refuse to go on the pill or anything with high doses of hormones like that because of effects it has on some women and I sadly have ovarian cysts but my last visit to the gyno the doctor said I wouldn't have much trouble getting pregnant when I decide to... And since the fiance has very low sperm count, I don't wanna take birth control to make it all the more difficult to get pregnant later.
Speaking of ovarian cysts, how can I get rid of them?!?! They worry me every single day.

reply from: scopia19822

It depends on the severity of the cyst. Sometimes they will clear up on their own,

reply from: Yuuki

That is your personal choice, but the level of hormones is actually not as high as people make it out to be. I had absolutely no side effects in the pill or depo, and depo is one of the highest doses you can get. Now, it did take over a year for my cycle to return to normal after depo, but that's fairly normal too.
Birth control will not affect your future fertility. It can in fact improve your fertility by making your cycles more regular. I'm not saying no woman has ever become infertile because of birth control (it has happened) but this is very, extremely rare. In fact, birth control is used by some fertility specialists to get a woman's cycle under control when she is having trouble conceiving.
As for the cysts, I'm afraid that what your doctor would recommend first is birth control. It's the easiest, safest and least invasive way of dealing with them. It's also highly effective. Cysts are caused by ovulation, so if you prevent ovulation you prevent the cysts. I don't really know of any other way to deal with them.

reply from: AshMarie88

I've heard wayyyyyyyy too many stories of women who have taken the pill and were "infertile" for over a year (because of the hormones, they couldn't ovulate for over a year, that's scary), I'm not taking that chance unless my doctor specifically says it will help me conceive.

reply from: lukesmom

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.
Hmmm, Nowhere on this post do I see any mention of religion, much less forcing it on you or anyone else.

reply from: lukesmom

Always illegal of course but why promote another board on a forum you have never before posted on? Rather rude IMHO.

reply from: nancyu

Liar. You forgot to say that you advocate abortifacient birth control and Embryonic stem cell research.
pro abort
An abortion is the ending of a pregnancy in a process that kills the unborn. Until implantation, you are not pregnant. It has not been proven which, if any brands of hormonal birth control cause a failure to implant, or how often. The rate is, however far LOWER than during unprotected sex. You are putting your child at purposeful risk MORE SO during unprotected sex than when using birth control. An embryo in a petri dish is clearly not implanted anywhere; though of course we should not purposely kill it. New ESCR techniques can harvest stem cells without killing the embryo, so I don't understand how that's even similar to an abortion at all.
Whatever...you are pro killing of unborn children.
If you could ever prove that, yu'd have a point. But you can't.
The proof is in the yuuki pudding. You are pro ESCR. You are pro abortifacient BC. You are not interested in protecting embryos and fetuses. You have said you would be in favor of killing a child if it would cure a disease.
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6421&enterthread=y
http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=6280&STARTPAGE=5&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear
I would. It wouldn't matter how old that person is. The moral good of curing cancer outweighs the moral evil of killing one person. And maybe I'd be sentenced to hell for that. But to know the good I'd given the world would make it worth it to me. Clearly, other people disagree on this subject. As for some of the follow ups on this I saw:
How many people would I kill? How many people will die from cancer this year? How many have died in the past? The original question asked for one. You can't up the stakes and ask the questionee to specify; that's not how your original rhetorical question worked.

reply from: Yuuki

Birth control is NOT abortifacient. ESCR is NOT lethal and so it too is nothing like abortion. I'm still waiting...
And by the way, hypothetical situations and philosophical musings aren't reality. If you think they are, you really do have a screw loose. An inability or unwillingness to lake that leap of logic into the realm of philosophy is very sad in my opinion. There is a lot to be gained from wondering out loud.

reply from: scopia19822

Embryos are human beings and no human being should be experimmented on without their consent. If and adult wants to take part in an eperimental treatment or clinical trial they must have the risks explained to them and sign consent forms. Minors must have their parents sign for them.

reply from: Yuuki

I've brought this up before. Could not the parents of the embryos sign a consent form for them to be used for ESCR? I can't see a single reason why not.

reply from: yoda

Can a parent sign a consent form to allow their child to be killed for the sake of a medical experiment? I surely hope not.....

reply from: scopia19822

I've brought this up before. Could not the parents of the embryos sign a consent form for them to be used for ESCR? I can't see a single reason why not.
The only time Im aware that any parent would sign consent for their child to engage in clinical trials etc is if the child has a medical condition and they want to get TREATMENT not to harvest stem cells for research.

reply from: yoda

Exactly!
Only the individual him/herself can morally volunteer for such research, NOT anyone else!!

reply from: Yuuki

Exactly!
Only the individual him/herself can morally volunteer for such research, NOT anyone else!!
Just like parents can't volunteer their children for life saving operations in the womb! --- oh wait they can.

reply from: Yuuki

I've brought this up before. Could not the parents of the embryos sign a consent form for them to be used for ESCR? I can't see a single reason why not.
The only time Im aware that any parent would sign consent for their child to engage in clinical trials etc is if the child has a medical condition and they want to get TREATMENT not to harvest stem cells for research.
The harvested stem cells can be USED as a treatment. A child's bone marrow can be used as a treatment. What about their cord blood and the stem cells from that? Isn't their umbilical cord part of them?

reply from: BossMomma

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.
So you think that options to try and save both should not be looked into? A tubal pregnancy or a ded child inutero has to be removed. With all of the advancements in medical technology this argument is almost moot. I was giving my answer to this question. I think if "abortion" has to be legal than it should only be so to remove a tubal pregnancy or a dead child inutero and I will concede to stop bleeding from a trauma as long as efforts were made to save both. You dont care for my religion no more than I care for yours. However I have a right to talk about my fiath on this board and how it pertains to abortion just like you do yours. As it is my faith that shapes my world view and right now my faith is really being tested...
Read my post again Scopia. I said..If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it. Never did I say life saving measures should not be attempted for mother and child. Concerning your faith, I don't care if you talk about your faith, it's when you use it to insult others for not agreeing with you that gets my hackles up.

reply from: BossMomma

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.
Hmmm, Nowhere on this post do I see any mention of religion, much less forcing it on you or anyone else.
Oh do go dog someone elses heels Sue. I'm refering to something Scop said a long time ago and our dispute really has not a thing to do with you. For some reason you've taken to following me around and shaking your finger at me while others who do far worse just get completely ignored. I don't know what I've done to chap your ass but as I recall I actually stuck up for you in you and Spinwiddy's little smear-fest, I regret that now.

reply from: lukesmom

I feel it should be allowed to save the life of the mother, I think most pro-lifers agree with that one.
Only if that is a tubal pregnancy or to remove a child who has died inuterto .
Scop, we disagree, will always disagree, have always disagreed. Don't force your religion on others, a woman has the right to choose whether or not she wants to die for a fetus. If there is no other way she should have final say in the matter and no one's pope, paster,priest,rabi or, reverand has the right to stick his nose into it.
Hmmm, Nowhere on this post do I see any mention of religion, much less forcing it on you or anyone else.
Oh do go dog someone elses heels Sue. I'm refering to something Scop said a long time ago and our dispute really has not a thing to do with you. For some reason you've taken to following me around and shaking your finger at me while others who do far worse just get completely ignored. I don't know what I've done to chap your ass but as I recall I actually stuck up for you in you and Spinwiddy's little smear-fest, I regret that now.
I am not dogging you. I haven't been on the board in a few weeks and was confused you would mention religion to Scopia in a thread no religion was mentioned. I don't know anything about your "dispute" a long time ago and don't care to. I wouldn't have said anything if I knew about it and I don't keep a log of everyone's comments like Spinny does.
I don't know why you think I am "shaking" my finger at you. I haven't been here for at least two weeks. I am appalled at all the infighting though, maybe it has been here and I haven't noticed due to familiarity, but I feel dirty today just reading a few posts. It isn't just you but everyone posting for the most part. I don't want any part of it and don't want to stoop to the levels certain posters do. And that seems to be what the board is all about.

reply from: Shenanigans

There's some promising work being done with monkies and other larger primates where tubal pregnancies are transplanted into the uterus.
I'd wadger in another decade or maybe less, we could be looking at tubal to uterine transplants of ectopics that were caught before rupture. And if I ever ended up with a tubal, I'd ask for the transplant option, even if there was really no way in hell of it taking, or it being really experiemental.
The child doesn't stop being a child or a life because its in an awkard place.

reply from: yoda

That's not "volunteering", that's giving permission for surgery to save the baby's life. That's worlds apart from giving permission for doctors to do experimental research on a baby to save OTHER people's lives.
You really can't get your mind around that, can you? Is it locked up again?

reply from: yoda

Not for the embryo they come from.

reply from: Shenanigans

Seriously, Yuuki, you wanna know why some people don't beleive you're pro-life when you post crap like this?
Life begins at conception. Pregnancy begins at implantation. For at least a week before implantation there is a human life. THere is no difference genetically from the two celled zygote and the mass of cells that burries itself in the uterine lining.
Pro-Life may have deviations as to "exceptions" for abortion, for birth control and what not, but life begins at conception, and it doesn't matter if that conception takes place in the fallopian tube or a petri dish. Life is life and it starts at conception. If you support the destruction of said life because it's not nestled in a wad of uterine blood then you ain'ts pro-life.
For all intents and purposes you should probably start calling yourself "pro-pregnancy" or "pro-implantation".

reply from: Yuuki

Discussing a completely non-lethal technique that can save the lives of millions makes me pro-abortion and anti-life? You guys have some straaaaange subjective definitions going on... I do NOT support the destruction of life at any stage, which is why I do not support lethal ESCR. I support the method that is non-lethal.

reply from: yoda

But what about the cell that is removed and altered so as to be a stem cell again? Is that not the biological equivalent of a new human zygote?

reply from: Shenanigans

So what happens to the embryo once those cells have been removed and it continues to live? Will it be placed back in cyro for mummy and daddy to have implanted at a later date? Will it be placed for embie adoption? Or will it just sit and stagnate?
Its naive to think that there's a non lethal form of ESCR.

reply from: Teresa18

It should be illegal. If the life of the mother is at stake, I support efforts to save both lives. If it is thought only one may be saved, attention should be directed to the mother. If the child dies in the process of treating the mother, that is sad, but it is necessary to treat the mother. A child shouldn't be directly killed.

reply from: Teresa18

Still playing semantics to justify the killing of newly concieved human lives I see? There is a debate over the definition of pregnancy. The Physician's Desk Reference also referred to birth control that can act as abortaficients. Time to bump a few threads.

reply from: nancyu

You are a TERRIFIC liar. Truly brilliant!

reply from: Shenanigans

Actually, the embryo is a human in a different stage of development. You take a single cell from another person, its just that, a cell, it doesn't do anything other then what it's primary purpose is. The zygote's purpose is to develop into other forms of cells which in turn grow and speclaise further.
Destorying a human zygote is destorying a human being.
Destorying a human skin cell is doestorying a human skin cell.

reply from: Yuuki

So what happens to the embryo once those cells have been removed and it continues to live? Will it be placed back in cyro for mummy and daddy to have implanted at a later date? Will it be placed for embie adoption? Or will it just sit and stagnate?
Its naive to think that there's a non lethal form of ESCR.
What happens to any other IVF babies? The fate of this particular child is no less or more morally reprehensible than the fate of the others. I feel the fate of these embryos (if they happen to be "extras") to be disconnected from their use as stem cell donors. Why couldn't it be placed up for adoption? It certainly could be, no reason why not.
In fact, considering this technique is currently USED anyway in a series of common pre-implantation genetic testings, it isn't far fetched to say that many embryos volunteered by their parents could become stem cell donors before implantation into the mother's body. Just like an embryo that is not tested. Or they could still be tested and the cell could simply not be used for stem cell research. It's up to the parents in my opinion. They can chose not to have any genetic testing at all, they can chose to have just the testing, or they can chose to have the testing and have the extracted cell be used for harvesting stem cells.

reply from: Yuuki

Still playing semantics to justify the killing of newly concieved human lives I see? There is a debate over the definition of pregnancy. The Physician's Desk Reference also referred to birth control that can act as abortaficients. Time to bump a few threads.
You call it semantics, I call it a very important ethical difference.
If you have unprotected sex you have a 70% chance of killing your unborn child just out of chance. Still think you DON'T justify killing newly conceived lives? "Oh well, that's just nature's way..." Oh, it's natural. Must be "okay". Calling it "natural" is just as much a semantic game.
If you have sex using hormonal contraceptives, you prevent ovulation in up to 98% of cases, which means you have a failure to implant in WAY fewer cases than unprotected sex. Bump away because you've got no clue.

reply from: Yuuki

You are a TERRIFIC liar. Truly brilliant!
I have proven both statements with facts. Thus, they are not lies.

reply from: Yuuki

Actually, the embryo is a human in a different stage of development. You take a single cell from another person, its just that, a cell, it doesn't do anything other then what it's primary purpose is. The zygote's purpose is to develop into other forms of cells which in turn grow and speclaise further.
Destorying a human zygote is destorying a human being.
Destorying a human skin cell is doestorying a human skin cell.
You missed the point. The CELL taken FROM the embryo is JUST A CELL. And you just proved that it's totally okay.

reply from: BossMomma

But what about the cell that is removed and altered so as to be a stem cell again? Is that not the biological equivalent of a new human zygote?
No, it's the biological equivilant of a stem cell. Like harvesting adult stem cells.

reply from: ProInformed

Actually, the embryo is a human in a different stage of development. You take a single cell from another person, its just that, a cell, it doesn't do anything other then what it's primary purpose is. The zygote's purpose is to develop into other forms of cells which in turn grow and speclaise further.
Destorying a human zygote is destorying a human being.
Destorying a human skin cell is doestorying a human skin cell.
You missed the point. The CELL taken FROM the embryo is JUST A CELL. And you just proved that it's totally okay.
So are you under the false impression that after they take 'a cell' from the embryo, the embryo is then allowed to continue to live, implanted into a surrogate mother, is born, and grows up to be a living child?!?

reply from: Shenanigans

Same. Cyro. Mummy & daddy. Destruction.
IVF is morally repugant if only for the reason that it destorys or plays God with the lives of tiny human individuals.
Again. Morally repugnant. People seem to think that because its just a few cells in a dish that its not human enough to be respected. As such, the life is treated as a comodotiy and they want the best one on the market, god help that zygote if its found to have Downs, clef palate or a girl or something. Its eugenics at a level people are too ignorant or arrogant to accept as such.
People who donate their embryos for research are morally void and free of any intelligence. They should be ashamed of themselves.

reply from: yoda

But what about the cell that is removed and altered so as to be a stem cell again? Is that not the biological equivalent of a new human zygote?

reply from: Shenanigans

No. I didn't.
Taking a cell from your arm is okay. (bar its not used to clone you or something).
The purpose of removing a cell from a zygote/embryo can either be to rule it out for implantation because of a gentic imperfection, thus, its destoryed or experiemented on, or the cell is removed for research and the zygote/embryo is kept for the purpose of continued research. A form of cellular farming which is rather grotestque, keeping a human life in suspended animation for the enjoyment of a few morally bankrupt scientists.

reply from: scopia19822

"It should be illegal. If the life of the mother is at stake, I support efforts to save both lives. If it is thought only one may be saved, attention should be directed to the mother. If the child dies in the process of treating the mother, that is sad, but it is necessary to treat the mother. A child shouldn't be directly killed."
My understanding of Church teaching is that every effort must be made to save both and if the child has to be removed and dies that is one thing. However if it comes down to the nitty gritty that only one can be saved than the baby is the one to saved.

reply from: Yuuki

If you actually believe that, then you don't believe the mother has any right to live. The child's life outweighs her own. When it is the child's existence via he pregnancy that is causing her to die...
That's like letting the person assaulting you live, killing you. That's also like condemning any person who defends themselves and inadvertently kills their attacker in the process. Even if the attacker isn't aware of what they're doing, they still don't have the right to live OVER the life of the victim.

reply from: yoda

You math is terrible. Having sex while using hormonal contraceptives does not remove the 70% you mentioned in the first paragraph, it just adds that to the 2% in the second paragraph. So you have simply increased your chances of killing your baby by 2%.

reply from: Yuuki

You math is terrible. Having sex while using hormonal contraceptives does not remove the 70% you mentioned in the first paragraph, it just adds that to the 2% in the second paragraph. So you have simply increased your chances of killing your baby by 2%.
I have seen estimates as hgh as 70% of unborn children naturally failing to implant and/or miscarrying soon after implantation. Birth control DOES prevent ovulation in up to 98% of cases.
YOUR math is terrible.
Off HBC sex: Ovulation = 95% of the time (women's bodies aren't perfect)
HBC sex: Ovulation = 2% of the time (with ideal use, can be as high as 15%)
Who is ovulating more? The woman OFF HBC. Who then OBVIOUSLY has a much higher chance of fertilization? The woman OFF HBC. Who then OBVIOUSLY has a much higher chance of their child failing to implant and/or miscarrying soon after? The woman OFF HBC. Even if the woman ON HBC ovulated all 2 of those times, and both of them failed to implant/miscarried, that is still FAR FEWER than the amount who could do so OFF of HBC. Which would be 73 deaths btw, if we're using real math and saying 70% of 95 ovulations are fertilized and then die.

reply from: yoda

This is a new area for me, and I'm learning as I go along. Aside from the fact that embryonic stem cells have been a black hole for all the money spent on that type research by states and private corporations, this "new technique" is not very well established, apparently:
"?The reality is very different. Researchers did not safely remove single cells from early embryos, but destroyed 16 embryos in a desperate effort to obtain an average of six cells from each one. This experiment left no embryos alive, and solves no ethical problem. From the resulting 91 cells, they still only managed to make two cell lines. Their study shows nothing about the safety of removing only one cell, which in fact is something they never did ? partly because their own earlier experiment in mice indicated that ?co-culturing? several cells together might be needed to develop a cell line. "
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2006/06-164.shtml [/a]
So, does anyone know of a report of researchers using the "new technique" on an embryo, and then successfully implanting it?

reply from: Yuuki

So, what about that commonly performed genetic testing done for things liek Downs Syndrome? I guess ALL of those embryos don't actually exist. Oh wait, they're born children now.

reply from: nancyu

It seems that they are destroying embryos in order to find a way to not destroy embryos. Ain't that odd.

reply from: nancyu

You are a TERRIFIC liar. Truly brilliant!
I have proven both statements with facts. Thus, they are not lies.
No you have NOT. You are a liar.

reply from: yoda

I have heard 50%, but I still don't understand why you can't see the difference between natural deaths and "knowingly caused" ones. Lots of babies die after birth, too, does that mean parents are to blame because they had those kids at all? No, as long as reproduction methods are normal and natural, there is no reason for guilt about natural attrition.
The woman OFF of HBC stands much more of a chance of having a live, healthy baby (absent abortion, of course). She is allowing nature to give life to those babies that nature will allow to live, and whether that is 50% or 70% is beside the point, ethically. And she is not intentionally lowering the survival rate of her babies from 50% to 0%.

reply from: yoda

Most were aborted. Something like 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down's are aborted.

reply from: yoda

It seems kind of insane to me to be spending all this time, effort, and money on something whose only result so far has been to get votes for Democrats who endorse ESCR and abortion.

reply from: nancyu

I don't know which church you are referring to, but I have never heard such a thing.

reply from: Yuuki

Most were aborted. Something like 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down's are aborted.
These were tested long before implantation darling. They could not have been aborted at all. If they were positive for Downs or other genetic markers the parents were informed and often those embryos that had genetic defects were not used. However, ALL of them had to be tested prior to implantation - even the healthy ones. Because you can't know until you test.

reply from: Yuuki

It's all really irrelevant. I support non-lethal ESCR. Just because you think a non-lethal method doesn't exist now doesn't mean one couldn't exist in the future. I feel parents should have the right to volunteer their embryos for non-lethal stem-cell donation. No one dies, paralyzed people get to walk again, and everyone is happy. That's what I support.
I do NOT support the currently used lethal method of harvesting new cells that involves the destruction of the blastocyst. I DO support research in finding new ways to harvest that are non-lethal.

reply from: yoda

Sort of like how they test for things like hair color, and pick out "designer babies"? Is that what you're talking about?

reply from: Yuuki

I have heard 50%, but I still don't understand why you can't see the difference between natural deaths and "knowingly caused" ones. Lots of babies die after birth, too, does that mean parents are to blame because they had those kids at all? No, as long as reproduction methods are normal and natural, there is no reason for guilt about natural attrition.
The woman OFF of HBC stands much more of a chance of having a live, healthy baby (absent abortion, of course). She is allowing nature to give life to those babies that nature will allow to live, and whether that is 50% or 70% is beside the point, ethically. And she is not intentionally lowering the survival rate of her babies from 50% to 0%.
Because HC deaths ARE NOT PURPOSELY CAUSED. I have yet to see ANY proof of a "deadly ingredient" in HCs. And since the intended function is to prevent ovulation, an failed implant is as much an accident as non-HC caused deaths. It's like saying that if you're walking down the road vs driving down it. If you run into someone when you're walking you're not likely to kill them; with a car you are. But that doesn't mean you PURPOSELY ran them over!! It was still an accident either way. But that's not the best example because the car isn't preventing pregnancy. Hah. A car isn't protecting or preventing anything actually; that's not its primary purpose anyway.
It's more akin to wearing some of armor and being shot at and the bullet accidentally killing the person shooting you (whether or not they were being malicious; maybe they were just demonstrating the armor with you). It's not your fault they are dead, and it's certainly not the armor's fault. This isn't a great example either though, because of course being shot at doesn't make you pregnant.

reply from: Yuuki

No you have NOT. You are a liar.
Then DISprove them with sources that are at least TRYING to be unbiased. Better yet, name the "lethal chemical" you believe is lurking inside of HCs, ready to murder babies.

reply from: yoda

Ummm....... no, it isn't......

reply from: Yuuki

Ummm....... no, it isn't......
Hey, I was trying my best. Flying on the seat of my pants there. Concerned parent actually has a great example over on the birth control thread.

reply from: Yuuki

Sort of like how they test for things like hair color, and pick out "designer babies"? Is that what you're talking about?
No. They were tested for genetic diseases such as Downs Syndrome, which I have said several times. While I don't agree with killing a child for those reasons, the fact remains they they WERE successfully tested using the extraction method, and if they turned out healthy they were safely implanted.
Precisely.

reply from: nancyu

No you have NOT. You are a liar.
Then DISprove them with sources that are at least TRYING to be unbiased. Better yet, name the "lethal chemical" you believe is lurking inside of HCs, ready to murder babies.
HOW ON EARTH CAN I BE UNBIASED? ANYONE WHO IS PRO LIFE TO YOU IS "BIASED."
DO YOU KNOW THAT HAVING A BIAS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN YOU ARE LYING? LOOK IT UP.
BUT HERE, I'LL HUMOR YOU OKAY, LIAR.
http://www.healthline.com/multumcontent/ethinyl-estradiol-norethindrone?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=Ortho-Novum&ask_return=Ortho-Novum+(ethinyl+estradiol-norethindrone)

reply from: nancyu

Of course I do too! I also support non-lethal abortion. Unfortunately neither exists at the moment.

reply from: Yuuki

Of course I do too! I also support non-lethal abortion. Unfortunately neither exists at the moment.
Unfortunately for you the first step for non-lethal ESCR does too. One cell is routinely taken from 8-cell embryos for genetic testing. These viable embryos are then implanted if they are given a clean bill of health. The only step missing is taking that cell and using it to make stem cells, instead of testing for genetic diseases on it.

reply from: Yuuki

No you have NOT. You are a liar.
Then DISprove them with sources that are at least TRYING to be unbiased. Better yet, name the "lethal chemical" you believe is lurking inside of HCs, ready to murder babies.
HOW ON EARTH CAN I BE UNBIASED? ANYONE WHO IS PRO LIFE TO YOU IS "BIASED."
DO YOU KNOW THAT HAVING A BIAS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN YOU ARE LYING? LOOK IT UP.
BUT HERE, I'LL HUMOR YOU OKAY, LIAR.
http://www.healthline.com/multumcontent/ethinyl-estradiol-norethindrone?utm_medium=ask&utm_source=smart&utm_campaign=article&utm_term=Ortho-Novum&ask_return=Ortho-Novum+(ethinyl+estradiol-norethindrone)
Rebutted on another thread.

reply from: Shenanigans

You know, I just had a conspiracy theory thought - most if not all scientists must realise, in all their great secular wisdom, that ESCR is a great big crock, so then, what are they spending their money on? Are they creating some great big doomsday weapon? Lookign for the X gene? Maybe creating a sexy lady who will date them?
With that said, it reminds me of that quote in Indepedance day "What, you think they spend 10,000 on a toilet seat?" or somethign along htose lines

reply from: Shenanigans

Most were aborted. Something like 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down's are aborted.
These were tested long before implantation darling. They could not have been aborted at all. If they were positive for Downs or other genetic markers the parents were informed and often those embryos that had genetic defects were not used. However, ALL of them had to be tested prior to implantation - even the healthy ones. Because you can't know until you test.
You think Downs syndrome only happens in the lab? Amniocentisis (sp??!???!) picks up Downs at about 16 - 18 weeks, they also read on scans now the nucal folds on the neck, apparently if they're wider then a certain amount its a strong indication of Downs, its not always 100%, but its enough to frighten those 9 out of ten to abort.
And you can bet your arse that if an extra chromosome is picked up at 21 pre implantation that little embryo is flushed down the crapper.
OH that's even worse!! I jsut found the stats = 91 - 93% of these children are aborted.
Caroline Mansfield, Suellen Hopfer, Theresa M. Marteau (1999). "Termination rates after prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome, spina bifida, anencephaly, and Turner and Klinefelter syndromes: a systematic literature review".

reply from: scopia19822

I don't know which church you are referring to, but I have never heard such a thing.
That was in reference to Teresas post and Im referring to the RCC. With medical technology however usaully both can be saved.

reply from: Yuuki

Most were aborted. Something like 90% of all babies diagnosed with Down's are aborted.
These were tested long before implantation darling. They could not have been aborted at all. If they were positive for Downs or other genetic markers the parents were informed and often those embryos that had genetic defects were not used. However, ALL of them had to be tested prior to implantation - even the healthy ones. Because you can't know until you test.
You think Downs syndrome only happens in the lab?
No. I said one form of TESTING is done in a lab to IVF embryos.
Yes. But that's not the point I was making. This is not about Downs babies. This is about the FORM of testing used, which involves removing a single cell from an 8 week embryo NON LETHALLY and allows the geneticists to test for things LIKE Downs, or any other detectable genetic disease. I'm not specifically talking about Downs; it is simply the example I used.
I'm talking about a specific form of testing done at the 8-cell stage... so why are you going on and on about other forms of testing?
Yes, I think it's disgusting that "imperfect" babies are destroyed and I think that's wrong. But I'm not talking about that right now. I'm talking about a form of genetic testing that is regularly used right now in IVF clinics that removes a single cell from an 8-cell embryo without killing it. That cell could then easily be taken to a stem cell laboratory and used for ESCR without any death at all.
That was my point. It had nothing to do with Downs Syndrome.

reply from: yoda

It's called "job security".

reply from: Yuuki

I don't believe in conspiracies.


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