Absolutely SICK.

[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!

 

[GTX]

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.

David, you and I were getting at the same thing.

I just don't know, in the end though it will be the mother who had her egg or embryo aborted to answer to a higher power, I suppose it is not my worry, and I can't really make a case with the bible against it, well I can, but it would be weak as embryonic matters are not really discussed in the bible, and we would fly off on a wild scripture chase resulting in exhaustion.

My human logic tells me that over population and unwanted pregnancies can and do result in unwanted children and/or unneeded children as there is enough hunger and suffering already present in the world. Therefore outright condoning pre-brain functioning embryo's is a possible ok with me.

It's still a fine line, and is in God's hands (for those who believe), as no one can really have the definitive answer to when life becomes life.

Life and brain function will certainly develop from the embryo in a short time (in most cases, barring complications), so who really has a definitive answer?

 

[GTX]

Oooops, double post. Quick fingers....

 

[juiblex]

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.

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.

 

[David Gould]

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.

Yes, a normally developed sperm heading towards a nomrally devolped egg is will potentially result in a human being. Thus, birth control of any type (withdrawing, condoms, spermicide) is killing a human being.

Not.

 

[TheBear]

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.

Who's talking premarital sex?

 

[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.

 

[TheBear]

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.

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.

(Hint: It's called moderating. )

 

[David Gould]

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.

I don't know, Bear - I appoint myself your official spokesperson and you come along and correct me. This just will not do. I am complaining to the union.

 

[TheBear]

LOL!!!!

 

[ocean]

This is ridiculous. Far right anti-abortion extemists calling any form of contraception murder. I guess birth control would be murder also, since it removes the "egg" from the body.

What is "absolutely SICK" in my opinion is not abortion, but the anti-abortion extremists taking away people's rights.

 

[GTX]

No, we are talking about an already fertilized egg.

As I said, it's not my call, and glad it's not. But the focus of the topic is aborting an already fertilized egg if I'm not mistaken.

What is "absolutely SICK" in my opinion is not abortion, but the anti-abortion extremists taking away people's rights.

Since you don't believe in God, you live by a different set of morals including those which violate nature and violate God's laws. But that's ok, you are freewilled! Hallelujah...

And.....I don't believe anybodies rights have been taken away, at least not in America, if they were taken away, it was because of a majority vote of your fellow people.

 

[GTX]

Originally posted by TheBear
Who's talking premarital sex?

Considering unwed mothers represent a majority of abortions, I am. Or I was, I am actually done here. I think...

I think you people should at least consider that the prposition is aborting a fertilized egg, and not contraceptives that prevent fertilization, huge difference.

Preventing a fertilization with contraceptives has nothing to do with and cannot be compared to aborting a now living fertilized egg/embryo.

Or are we unclear whether the fertilized egg or embryo is alive?

 

[brewmama]

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.

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.

 

[TheBear]

GTX,

Read post #68.

 

[GTX]

Originally posted by TheBear
GTX,

Read post #68.

I did, and not only that, I said it first!

Ok, that really is what needs to be determined (when is life considered viable), and no one will agree or has the definitive answer to this question.

So the debate will never be agreed upon.

And what about Mariucci????

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by GTX  
violate nature and violate God's laws. 

 

You have yet to demsonstrate that.  I think that it's best to say that it's your opinion.  Stating it as fact is not correct.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by brewmama
To put the exception "to preserve the health or life of the mother" totally invalidates the whole thing.

Because there's no concern by the antis for the woman. 

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.

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.

Of COURSE Congress refused, it is totally bogus.

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.

 

[brewmama]

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.

If you reallly wanted to "protect the health or life of the mother"  then abortion would be the last thing you would do, because it takes so long. A stat C-section is about a thousand times quicker, so 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 Nebraska case was defeated because it was shown that other types of 3rd trimester were just as, if not more violent and gruesome than partial birth AB, because it involves cutting off all the limbs of the baby,letting it bleed to death, then removing it in pieces, so partial birth is no worse. Logical, huh? This is what you are protecting. The life or health of the mother has NOTHING to do with it.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Originally posted by brewmama
spare me the hypocritical comment that pro-lifers don't care about the mother.

It's rather obvious they don't.  Why do the phony anti-abortion clinics want to know the race of the father then? 

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.

Why then did President Clinton have couples who made these agonizing decisions based on medical needs with him as he announced his veto?  Because your callous attitude is based on false information, that's why.  The law has no business being involved in these matters.

The life or health of the mother has NOTHING to do with it.

Then why not put an exception into the law agreeing to protect it?  Obviously, because the antis do not want to.