posted
My old drama coach used to get tons of Plan B prescriptions from her doctor (even though she was post-menopausal) and keep them at her house so that if any of her students or her daughter or her daughter's friends ever needed it, they could get it with no questions asked. Or maybe she didn't keep it at her house, but anyway, she would make sure girls got it if they needed it.
There is no point to that story. I just thought it was a good deed.
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: My preference would be for that compromise to include increased sex ed and easy and cheap or free birth control as well as easy and cheap or free Plan B. I would much prefer people were using birth control than Plan B. Easier on your body, less stress, and less likelyhood of screwing it up. But for people who are using condoms as their primary method and the condom breaks, they need to be able to get Plan B on weekends and after hours.
These probably have something to do with the prescription requirement for plan B.
What's the shelf life of plan B? I just don't see why it's so difficult to have one sitting in reserve in case the condom breaks or you get a little impetuous.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
" I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? "
If we could expect that, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because there would be no unplanned pregnancies. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: " I just wonder that we can't expect people to be conscious of the consequences of their decision till after they've made it? "
If we could expect that, we wouldn't be having this debate at all, because there would be no unplanned pregnancies.
quote:Puppy, you just exposed the root of the matter, or at least part of it....a lot of the pro-life argument comes from outdated morality, a morality that allowed men to have mistresses but forced women to marry at 16.
I think you're making a leap that I didn't make. What in the world does my last post have to do with an "outdated morality", "men having mistresses", and "women forced to marry at 16"?
Do you mean to say that drawing a distinction between an unplanned pregnancy that is nevertheless the result of an intentional action by the pregnant person, versus a pregnancy that is entirely forced upon the pregnant person against their will, with no volition of theirs going into it ... is "outdated"?
Can you explain the new, hip, cool modern morality in which personal choice and volition are universally irrelevant to responsibility? And how this is preferable and advances society?
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Added: it's also worth noting that Plan B's main mechanisms (preventing ovulation and fertilization) aren't "murder" even by the strictest pro-life definition. It might prevent implantation, which would fall under such a definition.
Of course, it's also worth noting that that the one birth control measure approved by the Catholic church, the rhythm method, appears to kill a fair number of embryos as well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you misread my intent, ElJay, rather generously, actually, for which I thank you.
What I'm saying is that at some point, the individual is going to have to take some responsibility. I don't think I have an issue with making the pill readily availible or even subsidizing it. I think using national law to make something non-prescription merely to allow weekend accessibility for the sexually active people who can't be bothered enough to keep one handy "just in case the condom breaks" is going too far to be accomodating.
I want to make it clear that this isn't a moral objection at all, just a "when did this become our responsibility?" one.
If the FDA, through its research and decision making were to make Plan B an OTC medication, and I would presume ordinary birth control pills as well, I'd drop this whole line.
But they aren't and I don't see *this* reason as sufficient justification to reverse their decision. I say this, again, completely ignorant of their justification for making it prescription-only to begin with.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
There's some pretty vague language there, involving two steps of logic:
quote:As many as 50% of conceptions may not survive long enough even to disrupt menstruation, Bovens says. It is reasonable to assume then, he adds, that embryos created from sperm that has been sitting for days within the female's reproductive tract before ovulation may be disadvantaged.
I don't think it's reasonable to assume at all, in terms of the ability to implant (obviously they are disadvantaged in their ability to acheive conception). Not to mention that I thought sperm only survived for a few days, period?
and the article identifies the gentleman as a "philsopher" from a school of economics-- hardly, it seems, a subject matter expert on biology.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the FDA, through its research and decision making were to make Plan B an OTC medication, and I would presume ordinary birth control pills as well, I'd drop this whole line.
The science review committee at FDA approved Plan B for OTC to over 16 by something like 23-3. There were no dissenters on the question of whether it was safe enough.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, the link I posted earlier outlines some of that stuff. My recollection is that there was a lot of debate about making Plan B available over-the-counter because of the possibility that it might chemically induce an abortion if fertilization has already occurred.
My reasoning is simply this: it needs to be readily available for those "Oh s*%#" moments, which I think we can all agree will happen regardless of how responsible sex education can or can't make people.
Added: Geez, beaten by Dag again. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If what Dagonee said is correct I completely withdraw my objection. The minimal research I did on this pill led me to believe it was prescription only.
So, color me better educated and let them sell it OTC at Wal Mart next to the condoms. I think we're cool there.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So far Jim and Dagonee have said that they would support something along the lines of my compromise proposal in the absence of alternatives closer to their position(s), and continue to work toward those positions; Scott said that he would support it with the knowledge that it doesn't completely suit him but that it is at least better than what you have in the U.S. now.
That's something, at least. It shows that we can talk about this without acrimony, a lesson I've been trying to teach myself without success for some time. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Jim-Me on this. I think if Plan B is too easily available or free, some people won't even use birth control at all since they have a fall back. (I realize that the purpose of sex education is to deter this. I know that eating too much sugar isn't good for me but sometimes I just have to have that cookie.)
I think there has to be a bit of accountability here because it's the ones who would not use birth conrtol that would ruin the "compromise" of Plan B for those who would use it properly.
edit: Took too long to post Dag kind of covered this point but I still think that the abuse of Plan B is a little bit of an issue that needs consideration.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
JimMe, if you don't live in a city or at least a large town chances are you don't have a rape crisis center. In the last town I lived the closest hospital with an emergency room was 4 towns away. (Although, honestly, I'm not sure where you could go to have access closer than that. The options in town would be the grain elevator or the gas station.)
(And I'm way too late. Carry on.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I think there has to be a bit of accountability here because it's the ones who would not use birth conrtol that would ruin the "compromise" of Plan B for those who would use it properly.
This is why I would keep it behind the counter provided availability could be ensured. I'm hoping that that would deter usage as a replacement for birth control (since it would only be of questionable effectiveness anyway, hence the name "Plan B"). Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
I do thin that a lot of the foundation of the pro-life stance is based on a need to dictate codes of behavior regarding sexuality.
Holy cow, how many times does this need to be said. It's not about regulating sex! If a guy or girl wants to get it on with a different partner every night I don't think it's the business of the law. I don't care what they do in the bedroom either, as long as it's consensual. I feel it's their business.
From all the pro-lifers I've interacted with in RL (most of them close minded religious bigots I think the phrase has been) I found that they don't care either. It's when a third, dependent helpless life is introduced to the situation and then killed that they feel the law should be involved.
I am very much in favor of wide availability of birth control, sex ed, etc. Personally, I don't want people having kids they don't want. I think it does the children a great disservice to have a single, deadbeat parent. I just think the time to do it is before the pregnancy occurs, not after. Most of us are able to operate automobiles, run personal computers, play complex video games and sports, yet people can't figure out how to use a condom? Give me a break.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sweetbaboo: I'm with Jim-Me on this. I think if Plan B is too easily available or free, some people won't even use birth control at all since they have a fall back.
I don't think you understand how Plan B works. When you take it, you have your period. Now. No one is going to decide that taking a pill that causes menstration to start is acceptable to do after every time you have sex, instead of using normal birth control. You can't wait until after you know you're pregnant to have it, it has to be taken within 72 hours.
--
Jim-Me, I believe the reason normal birth control requires a prescription isn't because of any danger involved in taking it. . . it's a bit of social engineering. If a woman is sexually active, she should be getting a yearly pap smear and exam. If she can't get her pills without getting the exam, it makes sure she goes to the doctor. I know a lot less men who have annual check-ups than women. . . because they don't need to get that piece of paper for their refills.
--
My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
It falls someone short of what I would want, but I guess that's what a compromise is, right I like it. I could go for it. I would have no qualms about my tax money going to fund birth control & sex education- IMO if you don't pay up now, the social cost down the road simply escalates.
Part of my objection to abortion is religious, and part of it is personal. I don't know when a fetus achieves personhood. I somewhat doubt it's on conception or implantation, but it's possible. So the futher it can be pushed back, the better to me. I see this as an acceptable compromise- but I hope it wouldn't stop the dialog (although at the same time I hope it stops bleeding national energy dry). I hope that we will come to the point as humanity that we understand when it is the fetus is a person.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: I am very much in favor of wide availability of birth control, sex ed, etc. Personally, I don't want people having kids they don't want. I think it does the children a great disservice to have a single, deadbeat parent
Indeed. Someone at my workplace has a bumper sticker that says something to the effect of 'If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a child?' Aside from the euphemistic use of the word "choice", it's a bad premise anyway. I *don't* trust abortion-inclined people to properly take care of a child. They lack the moral character and/or critical thinking to do the job right, IMO. But being a crappy parent is not justification for infanticide.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I read your compromise on page 7 and while it falls far short of what I myself would want, I'd take it over what we have now. What you need to understand about many of us pro-lifers is we believe that a child is being killed during abortion, so ANY action that would reduce the number of abortions is something that we're going to be happy about - even if it doesn't give us everything we want. I cheer every limitation passed - parental notification, late term restrictions, etc. because even if they don't do what I really want, they do move toward reducing the number of abortions. I cheered when this clinic was shut down. Sure, there are other places women can get abortions done but it will certainly make it harder and more inconvenient and maybe one woman, just one, will re-think her position because of that delay and decide instead to carry her baby to term. If it saves one child, it's worth it.
In my code of morality teens having sex outside marriage is wrong, but I don't think that they shouldn't be taught about birth control methods because if they do choose a path I disagree with, I'd want them as safe as possible - I'd want them using condoms to protect themselves from STD's and also from pregnancy.
While my teenager has been lectured about the consequences of sexual activity and told a million times it's best to wait until after marriage I also gave her a thorough discussion about how her body works and how people get pregnant and what STD's are. I don't hide my head in the sand and pretend people don't have premarital sex.
I think the portrayal of pro-lifers as people who just want to shove outdated morality down other's throats as Kwea said is a bit unfair. Sure there are some religious people who think if they never talk about sex their kids won't have it, but in my experience they're the minority. Most of us want to protect our children from the consequences of premarital sex, and care about the life of the unborn and want to see it protected. That's all - we aren't trying to police the sex lives of everyone. I can't control what you do in your bedroom and quite frankly I don't even want to know what you do. I like to keep my sex life private and think everyone else should too. It's when an innocent third party, the baby, gets involved that I start caring.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pro-lifers are not trying to regulate sex. What the pro-life people absolutely recognize is that pregnancy cannot happen by accident. There is no way that a woman can "Catch" pregnancy. Pro-life people are all, actually, pro-choice.
We just believe the choice is made when a woman decides to have sex.
This doesn't mean we want to make that choice for her.
In fact, I have long advocated that if the world really wanted to be pro-choice and make sure a woman had nothing growin in her she didn't want there, we would toughen up the rape laws. I strongly believe rapists should receive the death penalty. When I mention this to anyone, though, I'm usually answered with a bizzare defense of the rights of the guilty rapist, and dismissal of the rights of the innocent fetus, an incredibly hypocritical stance.
So it's not about controlling the sexual activity of any one. The choice is still theirs. We're simply asking that they recognize the responsibility that comes from the real choice they already made. That's the adult way to handle it.
Instead, it's the pro-choicers who want to separate sex and responsibility, who want to see this as adolesents and magically separate action from consequence. It's pro-choicers who are trying to manipulate the way pregnancy is perceived in a way that makes their view of sexuality more acceptable.
So when pro-"late"-choicers are after a way to have sex without consequences, it can feel like other people are trying to stop you from having sex. We don't care about the sex. Screw around. Get all the STDs you want. Or don't. That's entirely up to you.
But the second another life is created--because that really is what you're "choosing" here, to experiment with the power to create human life--then we get involved, and ask that you respect what you've created.
If it wasn't your choice, that is different. But since rape and incent currently only accounts for less than half a percent of the abortions taking place in this country, that's not really what this discussion is about.
I realize that my language is not as concilliatory as this thread has been so far. I try to stay out of the abortion topics for that reason. I know I can't talk about this in a way that persuades anybody, and anybody who agrees with me doesn't need to read what I have to say.
But the logical leap that it takes to assert that being against abortion is tantamount to shoving babies into women's wombs is unbelievable to me.
This isn't really about babies going without. The infant adoption rates in this country are 100%. There are waiting lists for infants to go to good, caring families.
This isn't about rape or incest. I already gave that statitic.
This isn't about telling people when they can or can't have sex.
This isn't even about embryos dying. That happens as part of life. Miscarriages happen as part of life.
It's about a fundamental attitude towards life, that ultimately respects having brought it into existance, accepts responsibility for it, and considers it valuable enough that it will be treated with the same care and respect it should after it leaves the womb in which it was created.
So I ask to the pro-choicers:
What can we offer you? What could we, as a society, offer to the women who have become pregant in a situation where they do not want to keep the baby, that will help "ease" the burdern we know you are under?
Can we, as a society, offer to more fully cover your health care expenses? Faster adoption services? More involved adoption services, so you can be confident the child is in a good home? Counseling centers?
Could we create a system where adoptive couples would help support the mother until her child was brought to term?
What can we offer you?
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the second another life is created--because that really is what you're "choosing" here, to experiment with the power to create human life--then we get involved, and ask that you respect what you've created.
This is what it will always come back to. Until one side of the issue accepts the other side's view of whether a fetus is a human life or not, your reasoning is pointless.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're simply asking that they recognize the responsibility that comes from the real choice they already made. That's the adult way to handle it.
I suspect that many pro-choicers would argue that children are not an inherent consequence of choosing to have sex, in the same way that getting fat is not an inherent consequence of overeating. While one leads to the other, and indeed one is almost -- but not entirely contingent -- on the other, it's possible to eat too much pizza while still remaining thin, either through increased exercise, a wise choice of pizza, etc.
The idea that pregancy is a required consequence of sex, so that the decision to have sex can be equated to the decision to become pregnant, is unique to the pro-life movement.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
To use your pizza analogy, we're just saying that if the person does become overweight, they can't argue that it was solely because of a lack of access to liposuction.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
That's why I said I think that whatever side puts forward a compromise that a broad base of people can at least stomach will ultimately "win" the debate in the U.S.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: What you need to understand about many of us pro-lifers is we believe that a child is being killed during abortion, so ANY action that would reduce the number of abortions is something that we're going to be happy about - even if it doesn't give us everything we want.
I do understand that, which is why I see the enormous difficulty inherent in trying to work out a lasting compromise. A compromise that allows any abortion at all -- possibly even a compromise that allows Plan B, because it might prevent implantation -- will inevitably be unacceptable to pro-life supporters who won't abide any abortions at all (leaving aside special case exemptions like averting death of the pregnant woman). My thinking is that people like Scott will be able to support a compromise along the lines I proposed because it's much better, from the pro-life perspective (insofar as there is only one) than what you have in the U.S. now. You, Jim, Dagonee, and BQT have said things along the lines of "I'd take it over what we have now," which is essentially what I was aiming for with the compromise proposal.
Irregardless, I know you qualified your statement with "IMO," but the suggestion that any person who would be willing to have an abortion is inherently a bad parent is... well, let me put it this way: I think my parents were excellent parents. My failings (and I'm sure you would have a different take on what those are than I do) are my own. I don't think casting aspersions on their character is at all useful to the discussion at hand.
doc, eros, Tom, would you accept the proposal I outlined?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My other concern about this compromise is that part of the reason I'd be willing to do it is to put an end to the abortion debate in this country. I think it takes up way too much of our national attention, and finding a compromise would allow us to focus on other issues. If a large chunk of pro-lifers are going to support it as better than we have now but will then continue to work for a full ban, well, it takes away a good deal of my motivation to compromise.
This is why I don't think such a compromise would occur. I'd be upfront about my intention of seeking further restrictions (both because I'd have to be upfront to be able to look at myself in the mirror and because I wouldn't want future attempts to be used to discredit my honesty), and I'd take rhetorical advantage of the ratchet effect to keep the restrictions from being loosened later. Pro-choice advocates aren't stupid and recognize that phenomenon.
So while it sounds nice, I'd be skeptical of it being agreed to.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I have a great deal of faith in the ability of the Great Wide Middle to set debates aside (not necessarily forever, but at least put them on the back burner) once a compromise solution is reached. That has definitely been the way things work on my side of the Canada-U.S. border, anyway; I'm not sure to what extent that extends south.
For some reason I keep thinking of the 'Missouri Compromise' in the 1800s, and other measures instituted to maintain a balance between slave & free states in the expanding U.S. I'm sure abolitionists were happy to get whatever concessions they could in such circumstances, but the nature of the issue was such that they were not going to give up pushing for more. I do think such compromises are temporary. It's unrealistic to expect those who regard elective abortion as murder to settle on an acceptable rate of it.
quote:Irregardless, I know you qualified your statement with "IMO," but the suggestion that any person who would be willing to have an abortion is inherently a bad parent is... well, let me put it this way: I think my parents were excellent parents. My failings (and I'm sure you would have a different take on what those are than I do) are my own. I don't think casting aspersions on their character is at all useful to the discussion at hand.
I didn't specify bad character as the only option; I also allowed that some may have good character but lack the inclination or ability to accurately evaluate issues independently (critical thinking).
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My husband and I talked about the abortion debate not long ago and he brought up CPR. Bear with me, this will take a while to get to the point.
He, like most paramedics (or, rather every single paramedic I know) does not believe CPR works in the majority of cases. Paramedics are usually very much for living wills, they do not want to be resuscitated, and it's because they see the effects of resusciatation so much and know that in most cases, it's futile.
Now let's define what I mean by "CPR doesn't work." Despite the tv shows you've seen, most people whose hearts are re-started in the field by a paramedic do not get up and start walking around the next scene. Most of them die. Usually pretty soon after the paramedics get their heart going again. CPR rarely does anything more than prolong the moment of death. The vast, vast majority of people who my husband gets a rhythm back on in the field will never leave the hospital. And he knows this.
Yet, we expend huge amounts of resources into training paramedics, we spend tons on drugs and other supplies so they can resuscitate in the field. I asked Wes why, when it was so rarely effective. He said "Because sometimes it does work. Not often, very rarely, but when you're talking about human life, you err on the side of saving life."
That's why, I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time accepting the pro-choice position. Because if we can't conclusively prove when that embryo/fetus becomes a human (and I don't think it's something we can ever "prove") then why don't we do the same? Why don't we err on the side of saving life?
Why don't we protect that embryo, why can't we say "OK, I don't know if it's human or not, but I'm not going to take the chance of it being a human life that I'm allowing to be destroyed so this procedure that deprives it of any chance of life, is wrong." We will expend thousands of dollars trying to save someone that every doctor and paramedic knows can't be saved, because there is the smalllest, slightest chance they're wrong and that person deserves that small chance. But an embryo doesnt' deserve the same consideration? Because it's small and doesn't "look" human? Is that the only reason?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: That's why, I'll be perfectly honest, I have a hard time accepting the pro-choice position. Because if we can't conclusively prove when that embryo/fetus becomes a human (and I don't think it's something we can ever "prove") then why don't we do the same? Why don't we err on the side of saving life?
Why don't we protect that embryo, why can't we say "OK, I don't know if it's human or not, but I'm not going to take the chance of it being a human life that I'm allowing to be destroyed so this procedure that deprives it of any chance of life, is wrong." We will expend thousands of dollars trying to save someone that every doctor and paramedic knows can't be saved, because there is the smalllest, slightest chance they're wrong and that person deserves that small chance. But an embryo doesnt' deserve the same consideration? Because it's small and doesn't "look" human? Is that the only reason?
Although I am pro-life, my guess is that it lies in what is sacrificed. With CPR, we're merely giving up money. With abortion, people are 'ruining their lives' by erring on the side of caution. I'm not saying that I agree with that, but it's one possible answer to your question.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect that many pro-choicers would argue that children are not an inherent consequence of choosing to have sex, in the same way that getting fat is not an inherent consequence of overeating. While one leads to the other, and indeed one is almost -- but not entirely contingent -- on the other, it's possible to eat too much pizza while still remaining thin, either through increased exercise, a wise choice of pizza, etc.
When someone overeats unwisely and gets fat as a result, society in general considers that to be their responsiblity, and not just an accident that happens to them. They can't sue the pizza makers and win, for instance.
When someone gets fat for other reasons (like metabolic changes with age, a hormone imbalance, or just a general stocky build), then society (except for mean people) does not consider it to be their responsibility.
Either way, if the fatness had the potential to seriously hurt someone else, then you can bet that people who got fat through their own choices when they didn't have to would be expected to rein in their harmful behavior and keep their weight down, while people who bore no responsibility for their fatness would have far fewer expectations placed on them, and more aid offered to them.
That's the kind of thing that pro-lifers are looking for, I think. Some sense that when a person makes choices that result in a tough situation for themselves and others, society will expect that person to bear responsibility for the situation, and not try to claim that they have a "right" to not deal with the consequences of their actions.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From a purely practical stand point, I'm willing to concede pre-implantation strategies even though I still have a moral objection to them. I think the case on those would be too difficult to make, especially in light of the recent assertions I've seen (but not followed up on, myself) regarding the number of conceptions that fail to implant.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim-Me I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that statistics on how many embryos fail to implant naturally really enter into it. I mean, there's a huge difference between allowing a natural process to take place and taking action on something. An embryo that fails to implant is a natural process. The morning after pill is an action designed to interfere in the natural process - they are two different things.
It's not murder if a person dies peacefully in their bed - a natural process has taken place. It is murder to walk in and stab that same person to death.
However, I do believe the morning-after pill regimen should be available to all rape victims. In this case, it's definitely okay for me to allow the victim that peace of mind - she need never know if she would have become pregnant or not. Yes, a few embryos that would have implanted might be lost, but I can accept that in the same way that I can accept the loss of an embryo if the mother's life is in genuine danger and requires an abortion to save her. The rape victim's mental health in that situation is enough of a consideration that the morning-after regimen is warranted.
But to have it readily available for anyone to use? No, I would prefer not.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
As are mine. As well as being reasonably critical thinkers. You might want to stop throwing around offensive generalities, Irregardless.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I think pro-life groups need to do a lot of cost/revenue analysis. Fight for reasonable laws and then try to educate people where the law isn't going to change.
I'm in total agreement with the active versus passive aspects you bring up.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not murder if a person dies peacefully in their bed - a natural process has taken place. It is murder to walk in and stab that same person to death.
The problem I have with this metaphor is this: If zygotes have souls, then God (or whatever) is really wasting a lot of them. I don't think God (or whatever) would be that wasteful, therefore I don't think unimplanted zygotes have souls. If they do, then whoever's in charge needs a brain enima.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: The problem I have with this metaphor is this: If zygotes have souls, then God (or whatever) is really wasting a lot of them. I don't think God (or whatever) would be that wasteful, therefore I don't think unimplanted zygotes have souls. If they do, then whoever's in charge needs a brain enema.
But I am trying to leave religion out of my argument.
Also, I really do need to see what people are saying about all these fetilized eggs being lost. That's new stuff to me and I'm not sure how to address it. The article Noemon cited above tried to make the assertion that degenerate sperm and/or eggs resulted in failed implantation and so the rhythm method produced a greater percentage of conceptions which were then killed.
That conclusion definitely did not follow from what was written in the article. One of the objections I had is that, from the wording used in the article, it's not clear that the conception itself is complete. A defective or incomplete conception would probably result in a failed implantation. But I am ignorant here... did the studies on this show that the the product of conception in these cases was complete and undergoing reproduction, respiration, response to stimuli, and excretion?
All that to say I'd like to see a fuller study on that before I make up my mind on how it affects my views.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So when pro-"late"-choicers are after a way to have sex without consequences, it can feel like other people are trying to stop you from having sex. We don't care about the sex. Screw around. Get all the STDs you want. Or don't. That's entirely up to you.
That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
posted
Also, as to regular birth control remaining prescription-only if Plan B is available over the counter: Regular birth control really does need more doctor supervision, in my opinion, than Plan B. Plan B is a one-time dose (it used to be one pill immediately, then another 12 hours later, but nowadays they tell you it doesn't matter if you take both of them at once). Regular birth control, well, you have to be careful if you're taking St. John's Wart or antibiotics...it's a constant thing. And sometimes you really do need a doctor to help you find the kind of pill that's best for you. Plan B, overall, is a lot less complicated for the consumer. At least, those are my thoughts on the subject.
posted
pH, hon, go get a manicure or something. This one is sooo not worth it.
Jim-me - The statistic I heard was on a Nova show about pregnancy, and it said that approximately 40% of fertilized eggs do not implant (because of the time of the month, or where the egg was when it was fertilized). I was pregnant with Robert, so that was 1996-7. My hubby and I gave eacvh other high-fives for getting it right on the first try. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This definition (from wikipedia) would seem to have a bearing on the debate:
quote: Gastrulation is the point in development when the implanted blastocyst develops three germ layers, the endoderm, the exoderm and the mesoderm. It is at this point that the genetic code of the father becomes fully involved in the development of the embryo. Until this point in development, twinning is possible. Additionally, interspecies hybrids which have no chance of development survive until gastrulation
The facts that twinning is possible, that this is the point where the father's genetic coding begins having an effect, and that interspecies hybrids make it this far are, I think, notable and germane to the debate.
also this link explains why CT and I were two weeks off-- I was thinking "weeks past conception" not "weeks of pregnancy."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
Wait ... don't tell me you believe that disease is a punishment from God or something I thought it was a natural consequence of having careless sex with carriers of disease Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which is possibly the stupidest way of counting anything that I have ever heard of. Apparently at the point of conception you become retroactively pregnant for the previous two weeks.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That pretty much says that you DO think that people should be punished for having premarital sex. "Get all the STDs you want. Or don't"? For God's sake.
Wait ... don't tell me you believe that disease is a punishment from God or something I thought it was a natural consequence of having careless sex with carriers of disease
But your phrasing is what implies that immoral behavior is how people get STDs, when that is not necessarily true.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: My hubby and I gave eacvh other high-fives for getting it right on the first try.
I'm not sure I want to ask this...but how do you know for sure it was "the first try"? Maybe one slipped by when you weren't looking. Unless Robert was a honeymoon baby.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Which is possibly the stupidest way of counting anything that I have ever heard of. Apparently at the point of conception you become retroactively pregnant for the previous two weeks.
Unless, like my ex-wife, you typically go 8 weeks between periods (she skipped months more often than not, to my recollection), in which case you are suddenly 6 weeks along!
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Which, goofiness aside, does raise a legitimate question for any laws based on timeframes. They would have to be fairly specific about how that would be calculated. Otherwise someone like your ex could be too late for a "less than six weeks pregnant" option before the embryo even implanted.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
