Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Originally posted by chickenman
a tumour is a clump of human cells with its own genetically distinct identity - it doesn't have the ability to think or to reason or to feel pain
the same as the few cells which constitute a pre-implantation embryo
down with birth control pills and chemotherapy!
A non pregnancy related tumor is not the same as a normal pregnancy in it's evolution.
The point is, is that a normally developing egg or embryo is a future life, I don't think that is a fair comparison.
Originally posted by juiblex
yes it is, we're not comparing the cells in the future, we're comparing them now, regardless of what they could be. a cell is a cell is a cell, although each have coded functions ehich they will respond to and later on will 'evolve' in to something else, at this stange they are still only cells.
Originally posted by GTX
Who's we?
I haven't seen you put anything forth.
Ok, maybe the saying should be altered to say "Don't want to be pregnant? Don't have pre marital sex, and if your married use contraceptives".
Juiblex: God is omniscient and would know that the baby would be aborted, but it doesn't make it right.
Originally posted by David Gould
Okay. Now, back to the real world ....
Teenagers make bad decisions - they always have and always will.
So, we have to decide what to do about it when a teenager makes the decision to have unprotected, pre marital sex.
That is what Bear is talking about when he suggests concentrating on the moral issue at hand. And the moral issue at hand is: is it moral to allow a teenager to take a pill that prevents the implantation of an embryo?
I would say yes, because I do not believe that an embryo is a human being and teenagers should not have their lives ruined by their own foolish behaviour.
You have said that once an embryo implants, it should be considered human. But you have also said that preventing implantation is dodgy. Thus, I for one am not too clear on your position. Could you clarify it for me? Thanks.
Originally posted by TheBear
I am not even talking in the context of premarital sex. My remarks go to the "Don't want to be pregnant, don't have sex" remark, in the context of a married couple. And, more importantly, for those who don't think I am contributing enough, I am trying to keep the conversation on topic, ie. a medical procedure, the definition of a fertalized egg, and the moral implications thereof. That is the topic of what the author of this particular thread started.
What is "absolutely SICK" in my opinion is not abortion, but the anti-abortion extremists taking away people's rights.
Originally posted by TheBear
Who's talking premarital sex?
Originally posted by Texas Lynn
If third trimester abortions were illegal except for when needed to preserve the health or life of the woman, I would have no problem accepting that. Neither did President Clinton, who told Congress he would sign such a bill with that exception in it. However, the Republican Congress refused to do so, so Clinton vetoed it, and rightfully so.
By that action, the anti-aborts proved their rhetoric about "the chirren" is hollow. They could care less about the children. the only purpose of such legislation is to control women.
Compromise on the issue has been proposed by pro=choicers time and time again only to be rejected by anti-abort extremists. Any restriction or claim of immorality for using a morning-after pill is pure posturing, nothing more.
Originally posted by TheBear
GTX,
Read post #68.
Originally posted by GTX
violate nature and violate God's laws.
Originally posted by brewmama
To put the exception "to preserve the health or life of the mother" totally invalidates the whole thing.
To put the mother through the whole process of labor and delivery, only to kill the baby as it finally emerges? Listen, I've worked in OB long enough to know that if the health or life of the mother is in jeopardy, they get the baby out ASAP. Without KILLING it.
Of COURSE Congress refused, it is totally bogus.
Originally posted by Texas Lynn
Because there's no concern by the antis for the woman.
My experience on the issue is limited to taking a friend to PP for her depo-provera shot only to hear racial and sexual epithets hollered at us by the anti demonstrators. You have a point, but, remember, third trimester abortions are less than 1/100th of all abortions and are generally only done to protect the life or health of the woman. Or in the rare cases where a fetus without a cerebrum is developing, or another gross deformity that would mean if delivered the child would not survive.
That's what the courts said about the Nebraska third trimester abortion prohibition law. Without an exception for the life and health of the woman it is unconstitutional.
Back to the original topic: implantation prevention is entirely moral and any attempts to sell the contrary idea is only an effort to control women.
Originally posted by brewmama
spare me the hypocritical comment that pro-lifers don't care about the mother.
You are misinformed about 3rd trimester abortions. To protect the health blah blah blah is a euphemism for I don't want to be pregnant anymore.
The life or health of the mother has NOTHING to do with it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?