South Dakota bans abortion. Full stop. - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2006, 10:37 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
sue4u2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: hatching some plot, scheming some scheme
Posts: 6,628
Local Time: 05:25 PM
The last I heard it still takes sperm to fertilize an egg..period..
or did I miss some late breaking news..
Seem's the only answer to preventing unwanted pregnancy and or an abortion is to ban men!! from having sex with any female
who may be of childbearing age.. underaged or not, consenting or non consenting, married or single, . After all if a man/boy has sex with a woman/girl then he's directly responsible if she get's pregnant.
How does that sound? simple and simple minded.
yeah, almost as simple minded as men and or women telling me what I should do with my own body..
__________________

__________________
sue4u2 is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:30 AM   #77
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
blueeyedgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Bottom of the earth
Posts: 6,774
Local Time: 08:55 AM
Dear God (and I use that term in a rhetorical sense cos I don't believe he/she exists).

Yet another reason for me to never travel to the US, EVER
__________________

__________________
blueeyedgirl is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:32 AM   #78
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sue4u2
The last I heard it still takes sperm to fertilize an egg..period..
or did I miss some late breaking news..
Seem's the only answer to preventing unwanted pregnancy and or an abortion is to ban men!! from having sex with any female
who may be of childbearing age.. underaged or not, consenting or non consenting, married or single, . After all if a man/boy has sex with a woman/girl then he's directly responsible if she get's pregnant.
How does that sound? simple and simple minded.
yeah, almost as simple minded as men and or women telling me what I should do with my own body..


Let's put that one on the books!
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 03:46 AM   #79
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,258
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra


Let's put that one on the books!
Agreed . Well said, Sue .

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 01:45 PM   #80
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Let's for arguments' sake say conception is the beginning of life and that anything that deliberately interferes with the natural process of pregnancy from that point on is killing an innocent, defenseless baby.

Some will say that the baby's right to life is absolute and there are no circumstances that would legitimize this killing.

Birth control pills (all of them), hormone-based injections and IUDs all have a failure rate not simply due to non-compliance of the woman but because they can't prevent ovulation and conception 100% of the time (IUDs for example never prevent conception). So there are a number of people taking birth control pills who may chemically abort post-conception without ever knowing it. Why aren't pharmacists refusing to dispense regular birth control pills?

So are we going to ban manufacturing and dispensing all these methods of birth control to protect all potential babies? If it is an embryo's absolute right to life, why wouldn't we?

Is it easier to just dismiss conception as the beginning of life than acknowledge that a woman's right (some would say RESPONSIBILITY) to prevent pregnancy - with a failure rate that kills babies - is more convenient?

Maybe it would be better if women simply didn't have sex unless they are willing to bear children.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 05:35 PM   #81
New Yorker
 
sallycinnamon78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,977
Local Time: 11:25 PM
Quote:
Yes, there are very special cases, but that's such a small minority.
Really. You know for certain that this is a fact, do you???

Quote:
Quote: "Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down."
I'm late into this debate!

I remember the Republican party conference in 1992, just before the election - a time during which all the main parties were playing then abortion card. As if any of them actually cared about anything other than getting into government.

I remember a high profile woman (michelle something or other, I think - I was just a kid at the time) made a speech pleading for choice in cases of rape and/or incest. She was basically booed off stage.

I remember getting very, very upset by this and sounding off to my mother, who said something along the lines of "if they want to go back to medieval times, that's their problem."

I was exceptionally glad when we moved back from the States to England later that year. Even the UK, my home, which I think is at least 50 years behind everyone else, is not backward enough to try and repeal the abortion law.

As for the college boy stats - Christ on a bike. I feel sick.
__________________
sallycinnamon78 is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 05:50 PM   #82
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy

Birth control pills (all of them), hormone-based injections and IUDs all have a failure rate not simply due to non-compliance of the woman but because they can't prevent ovulation and conception 100% of the time (IUDs for example never prevent conception). So there are a number of people taking birth control pills who may chemically abort post-conception without ever knowing it. Why aren't pharmacists refusing to dispense regular birth control pills?
How does birth control prevent conception or chemically abort? I'm not picking a fight; it's been a LONG time since I've had a science class! Can you explain the difference and how a birth control pill like say, orthotricycline can chemically abort? I'm going to get a new pill later this week some I'm interested....
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 05:54 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sallycinnamon78

Really. You know for certain that this is a fact, do you???
No, I don't know for a fact, but I'm willing to bet that the number of times a mother considers abortion because of potential death of herself or her baby is significantly small in comparison to the number of abortions used as birth control where there is no diagnoses of potential death for the mother or fetus.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 08:07 PM   #84
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:25 PM
But if you feel abortion is a case of rights and right to live, then how do you justify that a fetus that is a result of a rape has a lesser right to live than one that is conceived lovingly?

Is every baby not created equal to you then? Why is a woman's right to choose correct in this case? Nobody on this thread has been able to explain that.

ETA: This really isn't in my field, but I don't believe you can chemically abort by continuing to take a combination pill after becoming pregnant. There are questions about whether it may cause genetic abnormalities but I think even that has been discounted recently?
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-26-2006, 08:38 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
But if you feel abortion is a case of rights and right to live, then how do you justify that a fetus that is a result of a rape has a lesser right to live than one that is conceived lovingly?

Is every baby not created equal to you then? Why is a woman's right to choose correct in this case? Nobody on this thread has been able to explain that.

ETA: This really isn't in my field, but I don't believe you can chemically abort by continuing to take a combination pill after becoming pregnant. There are questions about whether it may cause genetic abnormalities but I think even that has been discounted recently?
Are you addressing me? If so, honestly I don't really feel on way or the other when it comes to legislation of abortion. I don't support abortion and I would never have one, but that's a personal choice. I can't imagine ever aborting a baby just because I didn't feel it was the right time or whatever, but that's my own decision. Every baby is created equal to me and obviously I can't say how I'd really feel because I've never been in this situation, but I'd like to think that if I were ever raped and got pregnant, I'd choose to keep the baby or at least give it up for adoption. I can't imagine dealing with the pain of rape AND aborting a baby. In general, I do not believe the right of one individual's choice supercedes the right of another individual to live, especially when the first individual has already exercised choice in creating a situation where another life is a possible result.

I'd rather focus on why it's such a pain in the ass to get decent, affordable birth control for women in this country. For me to get the pill I have to flat out LIE to my insurance company or it would not be covered and would cost over $100 a month. This kind of thing means a lot more to me than trying to legislate abortions.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 09:41 PM   #86
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by LivLuvAndBootlegMusic

How does birth control prevent conception or chemically abort? I'm not picking a fight; it's been a LONG time since I've had a science class! Can you explain the difference and how a birth control pill like say, orthotricycline can chemically abort? I'm going to get a new pill later this week some I'm interested....
I'm not a scientist but I know more than I ever cared to know about fertility so I'll give this a shot lol.

The pill and shots or patches are trying to stop ovulation. In doing so, your whole hormonal cycle and uterus lining is altered. Every now and then (I don't have stats), ovulation occurs anyway. So even if conception happens, the embryo may or may not implant in the uterus, and if it implants, it may or may not "stick". Partly because the uterine lining is not optimal and the woman is likely still taking the pills which does not allow the usual hormonal changes necessary for successful implantation. That's why it can be called a chemical abortion.

An IUD is a device that sits permanently in the uterus with the purpose to alter the uterine lining to prevent implantation (that's what the morning after pill does too). So there is absolutely no prevention of conception.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 09:50 PM   #87
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Thanks!
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 07:53 AM   #88
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 10:25 PM
Here's what i don't understand about believers in God who are "pro-life":
According to many traditions, believers in God believe that God bestowed upon human beings free will. Humans are set apart from other animals and other forms of life, because we have free will. Does a fetus have free will? Pro-life, God believing people argue that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter, so they need to defend the fetus's rights. That's admitting the fetus doesn't have free will. Therefore, the fetus isn't human.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 08:40 AM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by blueyedpoet
Here's what i don't understand about believers in God who are "pro-life":
According to many traditions, believers in God believe that God bestowed upon human beings free will. Humans are set apart from other animals and other forms of life, because we have free will. Does a fetus have free will? Pro-life, God believing people argue that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter, so they need to defend the fetus's rights. That's admitting the fetus doesn't have free will. Therefore, the fetus isn't human.
Good point. However, there are many traditions, my own (Calvinism) included, do not believe in the doctrine of free will. I guess for them then it's not an issue.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 08:49 AM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:25 PM
We should arrest God now. I believe I read that an estimated 80% of all fertilized eggs never attach to the uterus and are, as such, aborted.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com