A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

Originally posted by Bone75

No. I'm saying that people shouldn't have sex unless they are willing to accept the fact that accidents happen. Just because your contraceptive failed doesn't give you the right to kill the consequences. We all know what causes pregnancy.

How are you going to stop people from having sex? I'm open to your ideas. Chastity belts to be unlocked by the government only when the two people who want to have sex sign a paper testifying they are ready to have a baby? Is there such a thing as a male chastity belt? I think that would be good. Lock it up.

How about a Test Tube Baby?

What if the mother changes her mind and decides to abort?

By your definition it is Not part of the females body so how could it be wrong?

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


Frozen embryos are destroyed all the time.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Nephalim

 

This is interesting, so you believe that a women body should be legislated and sanctioned by law because its capabilities for procreation.

Who gave that right to men? do you happen to know?

It is also interesting how a woman can decide if a fetus is their child or just an "it". We can will an unborn child property, we can call it a double murder when the mom is killed, or the mom can just refer this unborn child as an "it" when it becomes convenient to do so.


Somewhere in all this we are failing....

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum

Tell me, at what point do a woman's eggs stop being a part of her body?

Birth

Sweet, so this means before we cut the umbilical cord we can decide if we like the child or not. If we like it we can cut the cord and its now a human, YAY!. If we do not like it (It got grandma's unibrow) we can club it like a baby seal.

reply to post by Xtrozero


That's kinda taking it to the extreme don't you think?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

That's kinda taking it to the extreme don't you think?

It seems we have a wide range of what is extreme. Some suggest a condom is wrong and is aborting a baby. We seen recently huge objections over state laws wanting to outlaw abortions past 21 week, except for the typical rape, mother's health, extreme abnormalities etc. We see clinics aborting late term pregnancies then killing the unborn outside the womb. We can even suggest the child is still dependent on the mother for years after birth, so why is it different then if we still want to abort it. So pick your extreme.....

Originally posted by kaylaluv

How are you going to stop people from having sex? I'm open to your ideas.

It seems that people are no longer responsible for their actions...That has become the foundation to many of our social ill wills. In the end the whole abortion debate will be obsolete by science anyways. The next debate will be about whether a woman has the personal right to get pregnant, or not. Will she need a tax stamp, license, ok from big brother etc. We are rapidly reaching the point that we can stop fertilization forever in either man or woman.

Oh the irony, we will be here debating if it is a woman's right to do with her body as she wills, but we will be referring to getting pregnant and not abortion.

reply to post by Bone75

But if you ban the means to prevent a woman from getting pregnant, by taking away the female controceptives, then what is left but condoms? Ahh, but that a problem, as most condoms are coated with chemicals to aid in the prevention of pregnancy as well, so that too could not be allowed by your arguments, as such could hard a fertalized egg.

And even a condom is not 100%, as when it is used properly, there is still a 2% chance that a woman ends up pregnant, with the average rate of 15% failure to prevent such from occuring.
Combine that the fact that some people fail to put it on properly, up to 40.7% of people experiencing breakage, and up to 19.3% expercing leak. Add in with the wrong kind of storage or lubricant and it just adds to the problems.

And why is it just the male who has to use birth control, should not a woman also take the responsibility for such as well? Should she also take the added percaution to prevent pregnancy on her part as well?

reply to post by Xtrozero


You seem to have lost hope and have a lot of disdain for the human condition, but I haven't heard any answers or suggestions from you for a better route. Do you have any, or are you just a "the glass is almost empty" kinda guy?

Originally posted by windword
You seem to have lost hope and have a lot of disdain for the human condition, but I haven't heard any answers or suggestions from you for a better route. Do you have any, or are you just a "the glass is almost empty" kinda guy?

Why yes I do....


We need to make abortions last choice and not first as it is used for convenience today than anything else. Right now it is a money maker to push women into getting one and States would rather pay for a free abortion than a lifetime of social aid. Maybe our problem is we make it too easy of a choice...get one free and forget about it.

The answer to this whole situation will reside only be prevention.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by windword
You seem to have lost hope and have a lot of disdain for the human condition, but I haven't heard any answers or suggestions from you for a better route. Do you have any, or are you just a "the glass is almost empty" kinda guy?

Why yes I do....


We need to make abortions last choice and not first as it is used for convenience today than anything else. Right now it is a money maker to push women into getting one and States would rather pay for a free abortion than a lifetime of social aid. Maybe our problem is we make it too easy of a choice...get one free and forget about it.

The answer to this whole situation will reside only be prevention.

I think prevention is great, but you are going to have to either give people a BIG incentive, or you are going to have to force it on them. Otherwise, people get lazy, they forget - they make mistakes - it's just part of being human. We're not perfect, living perfect lives, always making the perfect decisions.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

I think prevention is great, but you are going to have to either give people a BIG incentive, or you are going to have to force it on them. Otherwise, people get lazy, they forget - they make mistakes - it's just part of being human. We're not perfect, living perfect lives, always making the perfect decisions.

You are right, China puts big taxes on children after one, but limiting birth is not the answer either for you end up with a very aged society that doesn't have enough younger workers to overcome the older non-workers. The true problem is we live too long, so I guess we need to suck it up.

I'm not an opponent of force prevention when it is revisable/controllable. I personally do not believe it is every women's right to have a child when that child will end up to be dependent on the state. When one's actions effect others then I do not see those actions as one's right.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by windword
You seem to have lost hope and have a lot of disdain for the human condition, but I haven't heard any answers or suggestions from you for a better route. Do you have any, or are you just a "the glass is almost empty" kinda guy?

Why yes I do....


We need to make abortions last choice and not first as it is used for convenience today than anything else.

I'd like to say that we are in agreement here, but first I need a little more information. How do you define abortion? The OP asserts that most contraception that is used today, ei the Pill, the IUD, NuraRing, Norplant, The Morning After pill, are equal to abortion. He claims that because they have a fail safe, that should fertilization occur, they make the uterus hostile to the "egg" so that implantation can't occur.

The American Medical Association says that pregnancy begins with implantation. Therefore, according to the AMA, an abortion can only occur after implantation.

Where do stand on this issue?

The answer to this whole situation will reside only be prevention.

I agree, do we agree on what prevention is?

reply to post by Xtrozero


I think you read too much into the answer.

The point was that at that point the egg is technically separated from the Host and had absolutely nothing to do with deciding the Childs fate after birth.

Originally posted by windword

The American Medical Association says that pregnancy begins with implantation. Therefore, according to the AMA, an abortion can only occur after implantation.

Where do stand on this issue?

I'm not sure the answer here other than there should be a time limit....should it be at birth, 21week, 1 week, 1 second before implantation, I don't know .

My lesser of two evils would be shorter is better, but we are a long way from the 1 second before implantation, so to start I would say 21 weeks is in the right direction to at least define a point.

I agree, do we agree on what prevention is?

As I said best end result would be that there is no implantation, but once again we are not there yet...

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by Xtrozero

 

I think you read too much into the answer.

The point was that at that point the egg is technically separated from the Host and had absolutely nothing to do with deciding the Childs fate after birth.

Technically it does become a separate entity in the womb even though it is still connected to the host as it shares food etc with the mother, but it still does that outside the womb too for survival.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


At fertilization, only one cell is present.
embyonic delopment continues.
However, after week 10:
Weeks 11 to 14 of pregnancy (gestational age)

The brain, brainstem, and nervous system is fully formed
Eyelids close and will not reopen until about the 28th week.
The face is well formed.
Limbs are long and thin.
Genitals appear well differentiated.
Red blood cells are produced in the liver.
The head makes up nearly half of the baby's size.
The baby can make a fist with its fingers.
Tooth buds appear for the baby teeth.

by this point, good argument can be made that this is a human being.
Human beings have rights.

reply to post by Xtrozero


So do we agree, then, that there is no abortion if a fertilized egg hasn't yet implanted in the uterus?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Bone75

 

But if you ban the means to prevent a woman from getting pregnant, by taking away the female controceptives, then what is left but condoms?

From a Pro-Choice blog post I'm sure you'll enjoy...

“Combination birth control pills [made with hormones progestin and estrogen], vaginal rings, or patches interrupt ovulation and do not harm fertilized eggs. Eggs are not released in these cases.

Link

Ahh, but that a problem, as most condoms are coated with chemicals to aid in the prevention of pregnancy as well, so that too could not be allowed by your arguments, as such could hard a fertalized egg.

Condoms are coated with spermacide, a contraceptive that doesn't harm a fertilized egg and was conveniently left off of the expert's list above.

And even a condom is not 100%, as when it is used properly, there is still a 2% chance that a woman ends up pregnant, with the average rate of 15% failure to prevent such from occuring.
Combine that the fact that some people fail to put it on properly, up to 40.7% of people experiencing breakage, and up to 19.3% expercing leak. Add in with the wrong kind of storage or lubricant and it just adds to the problems.

And that is helpful information on the risks involved for those who would like to engage in sex without creating a child... or "having" to kill one.