ARTICLE: Thank God I'm Not a Woman!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmm ... does anyone know when conception takes place after intercourse? I imagine a lot depends on the position of the egg in the fallopian tube, motility of the sperm and so on. Twelve hours? Sixteen? Twenty-four? My point being that if the emergency drugs are administered in a timely fashion, it might prevent the egg from being fertilized in the first place.

That's hard to do because it is not the mechanism of these drugs. What they do is harden the lining of the endometrium, so that the embryo, after fertilisation, travels down into the womb, and cannot implant in the uterus.

So these drugs are not designed to block the passage of sperm, as other barrier methods do to prevent contraception.

I don't believe a just-fertilized egg constitutes a human being. To me, that's belittling just what the soul is (a small mass of cells, three days old?!)

Some said the same about black people, that if they had a soul, it would cheapen God.

Yes, I know this is difficult to see, as it is so far removed from our everyday experience, but why should a smaller clump of cells be less of a person, than the larger mass that we are?

the soul and God are more intelligent than what some give them credit for.

Then like the garbageman in Dilbert, why would they see things the way we do?

I don't care if its genetically flawed,

So do you believe that those who have genetic flaws are less of a person than those who do not?

Using that logic, if anti-abortion laws worked, there'd be no back alley abortionists, would there?

Now, be careful. I did not say that no one would take this route. I said that the popularity of the method reflected the failure of the current approach of health education. Big difference.

Yes, I admit, no law is perfect. Laws against murder do not stop all murder. Neither will laws against abortion stop all abortions.

As for how, even back in the bad old days, most of the abortions done were being performed safely, as they were done by competent physicians. Why should we expect butchers now when we have much better technology?

Furthermore, you call it "popular." I disagree, considering the fact that the number of legal abortions in this country has actually declined from its high.

Do such counts measure the number of people partaking of emergency 'contraception'?

What it comes down to is this: There are 6.2 billion people on this planet, and it's nigh impossible to get them all to do "the right thing," all the time.

So then, it's okay for sex education to fail, because we all know it's hopeless? Why bother with it in the first place?

Yet history obviously shows that just saying "no" and using abstinence education doesn't work 100 percent, either.

Yes, but such education has been shown to be more effective than other forms that tell you to use a condom everytime.

Therefore, you need to expose people to *all* aspects of sex education — abstinence, STDs, the stages of pregnancy and childbirth, contraception options and so on. That way, they not only know the best way to avoid pregnancy, but also what options they have if pregnancy occurs.

Actually, best to tell people to wait, and if you can't wait, to stay with one partner, and if you can't do either of the first steps, then you have them use a condom. That is if your goal is to reduce these problems rather than increase them.

Giving them options, isn't going to help them when you really don't want them having to use these options in the first place.

I did include men in my statement. Go back and look.

Yes, but you did not say that they ought to always stay by the women they get pregnant. You said that 'if they wish to be involved'.

That tells me that it is an option for the man to choose not to be involved, which is another way of saying that the woman does not have that option, and to place the primary burden on the woman.

The responsibility should be shared.

Not the man. It's rare for me to ever hear anything about the responsibility the man has in the whole affair. It angers me. Perhaps that "Isn't she too young?" campaign should go nationwide, since a good deal of unwanted pregnancies are caused by older men having their way with teenage girls.

Do you think the pro choicers are the ones pushing for the involvement of men, when they tell the man that regardless of his wishes, his partner can have an abortion?

The only ones who are saying that the men should be accountable, and responsible along with the women are the prolifers. For everyone else, it's not a man's issue, it's not a man's problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Pool all your funds that would otherwise go to bombing clinics, threatening//killing doctors, and bribing politicians and create an organization that will take care of unwanted children. This organization would take care of all expenses of the mother of the unwanted child for carrying the child to term: medical fees and the naught. Then the organization would adopt the child. They would take care of it and try to find it a new family that will want it.

What babies to be adopted?

Gotta have the babies first.

And BTW, check out 'crisis pregnancy centres' if you want to see this sort of thing. This is their specialty. But it doesn't do much good if there are no babies to be adopted.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
They aren't really the same. The guns are better than these drugs.

Again... straw man crap. We aren't talking about guns.

Here I thought the drug was available without a prescription. I know that there are people who have been pressing hard for this, which means that the only way people will ever hear about the side effects is from their pharmacist.
And I think that if they are made available without a prescription that the pharmacists should have the right to use their discretion whether or not to stock the drug. The drug does have serious side-effects, but unfortunately, politics seems to always trump medicine, and the welfare of the patient.

Excuse me... the definition of a side-effect is an effect that happens beyond what the drug is expected to do.

The drug is meant to terminate the pregnancy... that is not a "side-effect", that is the purpose.

So if I clubbed an unwanted infant to death I am helping the mother too? And here I thought you could come up with a medical benefit of the drug for mothers in their early pregnancy.

Strawman crap. An "infant" is different than an fetus.

While there is NO argument that an infant is a real person... the question of when a fetus is really a person is one that will continue. But another fact is that it's the MOTHER'S BODY. And she has a right to maker her own decisions. So if she is taking a pill to end a pregnancy, it does indeed have a medical benefit to HER, the PATIENT!

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Ben? Faced with a woman who had, for example, a 30% risk of death if pregnancy went to term- would you force her to take that risk?

[Ben Kenobi]

Would I force her to take that risk?

The example you cited, the woman already knows her risk before becoming pregnant.

If she knowingly chooses to become pregnant, or to engage in activities in which she may become pregnant, then she has chosen to take that risk.

I cannot force her to become pregnant, and nor can I force her to take the risk.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again... straw man crap. We aren't talking about guns.

Okay. That's fine. I'll try a different route then.

Excuse me... the definition of a side-effect is an effect that happens beyond what the drug is expected to do.

The drug is meant to terminate the pregnancy... that is not a "side-effect", that is the purpose.

And that's not what I'm talking about by a side effect of the drug. The side effects I'm citing come earlier in the thread in the links I provided.

So I wholeheartedly agree that the only purpose of the drug is to procure an abortion.

Strawman crap. An "infant" is different than an fetus.

In what way?

While there is NO argument that an infant is a real person...

Some do doubt this, Ming. Peter Singer for one. Just because you believe the infant to be a real person, doesn't mean all others agree.

But another fact is that it's the MOTHER'S BODY.

Who's body is the one that dies from the drug? Obviously not the mother.

I agree with you that the mother has the right to determine what happens to her own body, but she does not have the right to do the same for the body of other people.

And she has a right to maker her own decisions.

So I have the right to just shoot someone because they are an inconvenience to me, because I have the right to make my own decisions?

So if she is taking a pill to end a pregnancy, it does indeed have a medical benefit to HER, the PATIENT!

It may have a benefit to her, but not a medical benefit. It does not relieve her of a medical condition.

[Jon Miller]

Laz

I consider myself Pro-Life

but I would still allow abortion in that case (of course, if she could get one in the first trimester, but than waits for no good reason, I might not allow her to get one)

most abortions come about because the woman doesn't want the responsibility or the like

if it is actually life versus life, than that is a different issue (And it is one that doctors have to make all the time)

(my understanding is that we have a 30/0 and 70/100, even though it seems the 70/100 is better, I would allow the woman to get an abortion, especially if it was pre-third trimester)

to me the worse bit of abortion, is where they kill the Baby inside, because if they just brought it out, it would live

the rest of the argument comes about when life begins, and I think that scientifically the most reasonable result is for ~when brainwaves start, which is roughly arround the time of the end of the first trimester, which is roughly the time period I would be ok with allowing abortion at

Jon Miller

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That's because you're sane, Jon, and aren't willing to put a woman at severe risk of death in order to maintain your own crystalline ethical purity.

Ben isn't.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let me rephrase that question, Ben. Would you support the passing of laws that forced women to take that risk of death?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It may have a benefit to her, but not a medical benefit. It does not relieve her of a medical condition.

Uhhhh... pregnancy IS a medical condition... ending it does relieve her of it... she is NO LONGER PREGNANT.


And last... you base many of your straw man arguments on your belief that a fetus is a living person with rights... A point that is still open to much debate.

When exactly is a fetus a living person with rights in the eyes of the law/court... I think your "opinion" runs counter to what the law of the land is.

Now I'm sure you will bring up slaves or guns now and ignore the rights of the woman.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because you're sane, Jon, and aren't willing to put a woman at severe risk of death in order to maintain your own crystalline ethical purity.

How am I forcing her to get pregnant?

The woman in your example knows the risks. If she doesn't want to get pregnant, than she won't.

Secondly, the only medical condition that has come up that poses a threat to the life of the mother in the early term, where the woman does not have a prior warning, is an ectopic pregnancy.

And if I were supposedly more concerned about my presumed 'ethical purity', then the life of the mother, why do I allow abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy?

[Ben Kenobi]

Would you support the passing of laws that forced women to take that risk of death?

No, because the laws do not force a woman to become pregnant.

If we could do that, then why would declining birthrates be a problem?

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhhhh... pregnancy IS a medical condition

No, it is not. The problems arise from pre-existing conditions apart from pregnancy.

For a healthy woman, pregnancy has many proven medical benefits, just one of them being a reduction in the risk of breast cancer.

And last... you base many of your straw man arguments on your belief that a fetus is a living person with rights... A point that is still open to much debate.

And your points are based in the opposite position, that the fetus is not a person, and are just as open to debate.

When exactly is a fetus a living person with rights in the eyes of the law/court... I think your "opinion" runs counter to what the law of the land is.

Was this always so, Ming? If so, then does that mean laws that previously banned abortion were valid?

And I believe the unborn child to be a person, because I cannot see a division between the unborn child in the womb and the infant that comes forth from the womb. The two are one being, just in different stages of development.

So why should we have one law for one age, and another law for a different age? It makes no sense to me.

The laws of the land, or the US, since Canada has no such abortion law, are all based on premises that fall apart if you consider the unborn child to be a person. One does not have a right to beat their children in private, so why would they have a right to kill their child in the womb?

[Ben Kenobi]

if it is actually life versus life, than that is a different issue (And it is one that doctors have to make all the time)

Very true.

to me the worse bit of abortion, is where they kill the Baby inside, because if they just brought it out, it would live

And this is why Laz has ignored my point on this throughout. If you can save both, why do we insist that one must die?

the rest of the argument comes about when life begins, and I think that scientifically the most reasonable result is for ~when brainwaves start, which is roughly arround the time of the end of the first trimester,

How do you know this, Jon?

[Jon Miller]

about brain waves starting?

it is actually not a set date, but it is arround the first trimester mark

I haven't looked it up in a while, but I did once

I would recommend you do the same

Jon Miller