This thread is an example of why the subject of abortion was a long-prohibited topic in this forum. We've already had one member storm off in it, and I can all but guarantee you that some readers of this forum seethed when they read my post.

You'll notice, however, knowing this did not stop me from posting it.

It is so acutely trite, but I'll say it anyway: We must agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^The Mayo Clinic has a different opinion...

"Plan B One-Step is a type of morning-after pill that can be used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."



https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...l/about/pac-20394730

Your quote clearly says it prevents pregnancy. If you’re not pregnant, you can’t have an abortion. Just to be clear, I’m not trying to be difficult and have zero medical training.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that birth control pills were an option following rape. I was merely wondering if they prevented pregnancy under those circumstances. Many women are taking those pills on a regular basis, anyway.

flashguy

I know that's not what you were suggesting. What i meant was, expecting a woman to take birth control pills just in case she might be raped one day is...well I'll just say not practical or even reasonable.

But yes, surely it would prevent her from getting pregnant in that case.

quote:

Originally posted by crue-dell:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^The Mayo Clinic has a different opinion...

"Plan B One-Step is a type of morning-after pill that can be used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."



https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...l/about/pac-20394730

Your quote clearly says it prevents pregnancy. If you’re not pregnant, you can’t have an abortion. Just to be clear, I’m not trying to be difficult and have zero medical training.

Please know I'm not trying to be difficult either. I was selective as to one particular part of your post to which I was responding, and while maybe I should have spoke to the entire context, I did not. I felt it appropriate to somewhat limit my posts on this subject to facts and not venture into ones belief(s) or interpretation, as the are areas on this subject that some (many?) consider gray. Regardless, I'm NOT one of them...

Sooo that said, I believe that 'most' that are Pro-Life would consider the 'Plan-B/Morning After' pill an Abortion Pill, and certainly the VAST Majority of those who believe that 'Life Begins at Conception' would have that exact opinion! We can all agree though that scientifically, the 'Morning After' pill prevents pregnancy....Call it what you will, but like anything else, everything is in the details!

Ultimately, as Para indicated, at the end of the day people will need to agree to disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by crue-dell:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^The Mayo Clinic has a different opinion...

"Plan B One-Step is a type of morning-after pill that can be used after unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy. Plan B One-Step contains the hormone levonorgestrel — a progestin — which can prevent ovulation, block fertilization or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus."

https://www.mayoclinic.org/tes...l/about/pac-20394730

Your quote clearly says it prevents pregnancy. If you’re not pregnant, you can’t have an abortion. Just to be clear, I’m not trying to be difficult and have zero medical training.

The primary function morning after pills is the last item on the list - to prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the Uterus. If you could a fertilized egg as a human life then it is an abortion. If not, then it's whatever you like to call it.

If there is no egg (not reached ovulation yet in the cycle), or and egg that did not get fertilized, then these pills really don't do much. I suppose it might be able to prevent impending ovulation that could be fertilized by residual sperm, but that's really stretching things.

Some women know exactly when they ovulate and thus when they are fertile - they can feel a sensation or pain in the ovary - but some women cannot tell at all.

And if you hadn't noticed, women are generally most interested in sex when they are the most fertile - right at and just after ovulation. That's nature trying to ensure the survival of the species, and while a man may feel he is getting lucky when a woman is very interested, he is actually at the highest risk of becoming a father. The urge to procreate is very strong, and it certainly interferes with logic and reasoning - which is why people who know better sometimes fail to use birth control methods effectively. Anyone in a marriage or LTR that has turned into a "once a month" affair can relate to the timing issue.

Birth control pills are generally more reliable than barrier or timing methods, but only when taken regularly on time every day. Hormonal implants or IUD's are probably the most reliable because you can't forget to take them like with pills.

But hormonal method have side effects, sometimes severe, like migraines, weight gain, cramping, and other issues so some women simply cannot tolerate them. For them, barrier methods are the only option, so in the event of an assault, they are at risk of pregnancy.

As for rape and incest victims "knowing" immediately they were assaulted, the reasons women do not report such crimes is complex. Talk to some survivors and they can explain their reasons.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
The reality is everyone is going to have to compromise.

Anyone on the right side of this cannot compromise. It is a matter of absolute right and absolute wrong. There is no in-between.

quote:

Hell, you can fertilize embryos and freeze them for the future so that you can use them or dispose of them at a later date.

Not if you are Catholic.

quote:

The only issue to discuss is what point in the development of a fetus defines the time limit.

The point at which new DNA is created. It's not complicated at all.

quote:

Something simple - like 1st trimester is OK, and after that only when absolutely medically necessary would be another option.

There is no medical condition which requires an abortion to save the life of the mother. None. Zip. Nada. "Medical necessity" doesn't exist. Ask any qualified OB/GYN. If they are being honest, they'll tell you the same truth.

No, "medical necessity" is merely used by the left to play on your emotions, not unlike rape and incest. Who can imagine anything more horrible?
That's why they use it...it's their foot in the door. However, while it is (obviously) possible to become pregnant via rape or incest, the child conceived is no less a human being than one conceived in love. Both deserving every bit of protection we can give them.

Bravo, Gustofer.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:


If this law is allowed to stand, it will have huge implications for gun rights in blue states. It won’t take long for Democrats to start passing laws that allows anyone to sue anyone aided or abetted the legal sale of a firearm that is used in a crime.

Today, I read a headline that said “Eric Swallwell says that Republicans are celebrating cop killers in Jan 6 probe”.

Rich.

Swallwell hasn’t given two fucks about cops ever. His claims are just a politically convenient thing to say.

When I read stuff like this, I’m really sure it’s in that same vein. Democrats are already desperately trying to do it already. This Texas law has little or no effect on what the left may or may not do. It’s a complete red herring.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
hypocrites, the whole lot of you

You're so full of shit on this, what a stupid argument. For years, whether we liked it or not the supreme court dreamed up a right, the left (and ghoulish nuts like you) had abortions in the first trimester. This should have shut up you and the other idiots throwing out the rape/incest argument. There it was just what was asked for - abortions for health of the mother, rape, incest, poor-health of the baby (and no doubt some plain old unwanted convenience abortions.) But could it stop there Nooo, it then had to be second trimester. Was that enough well Nooo, it had to be third trimester. Was that enough for your ghoulish death cult, Nooo of course not, now your cult wants abortions up to the day of birth and if the baby survives this horrible in-humane procedure set the living baby aside while we talk to the mother, as the baby is over in the corner dying. How putrid you are for supporting an abortion industry full of sick and demented people. You would have done well in the 1930's and 40's under a twisted set of humans trying to take over Europe.

So of course there are going to be push backs from states and people. Now that you want to let born-alive babies die off in the corner - and call it Family Planning. I have no problem if Roe is overturned. You should have controlled your cult. What sort of "modern" society kills off 300K of their children every year. And where is personal responsibility in all this.

I believe this vastly complex issue comes down to whether you believe developing children in the womb are really 'human' or not.

I believe it is that simple.

So, we could argue this issue for decades, and if neither side changes their beliefs about this core issue (living human or not), nothing will be accomplished.

If you think an unborn child is just a bunch of generic biological matter, then it really IS a matter of a woman's choice to decide what happens with her own body. What business is it of mine if some woman on the other side of the country wants to have an appendectomy?

BUT, if one takes the view that the unborn baby is a human being, with all the human rights the rest of us possess, (you know, the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator) then it now becomes a matter of protecting innocent life.


I have a family photo taken on a Christmas Eve. This photo was taken several months before I was born. My parents and brothers are clearly visible in the photo. I am also in the photo, though you cannot see me. I am in my pregnant mother's womb (she is obviously pregnant in the photo).

Now, at that stage of my development, I was most certainly alive, and had been for several months. Here I am today, decades later, writing about it. Yet, some would have argued that when that photo was taken, I did not have rights, that I was a 'fetus' and not a legitimate person, and that some abortionist could have simply murdered me on a whim. You see, when one works backwards like this, abortion is MUCH less easy to defend, isn't it? I am alive today. I was alive when that photo was taken. I was actually alive for months by the time that photo was taken. To imply I became 'alive' at the moment of my birth is just ridiculous, IMO.


Slavery and the Holocaust are over-used metaphors for so many issues nowadays; from everything from gay/trans rights to Karens objecting to being call 'Karen' (some Karen said that word is equivalent to being called a racial slur). But, in this case, I find the metaphors to be applicable. Unborn babies are dismissed by many as non-entities. They aren't really 'human.' They don't have rights. They can be killed right up to birth (and in MANY documented cases, after they have been born; left to die on a cold table after a failed abortion). Tell me how this is different from enslaving, mistreating, and even murdering 'non-human' Africans in the American South or Jews in WWII?


History does not truly repeat, but historical trends do recur, since humans really haven't changed for the past 10,000 years (we keep doing the same stupid crap over and over again). One such recurring trend is the de-humanization of others. Once you de-humanize a person, it is amazing what can be done to them, often under the protection of 'the law' and with full support of society.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:
There is no medical condition which requires an abortion to save the life of the mother. None. Zip. Nada. "Medical necessity" doesn't exist. Ask any qualified OB/GYN. If they are being honest, they'll tell you the same truth.

I agree with you mostly, but there can be some circumstances. I had an aunt who was diagnosed with cancer (this was in the 1970s), and she was newly pregnant. Her choice was either the pregnancy, cancer treatments, or both. She opted for both, and the child was handicapped. It was an agonizing situation. I don't know if anybody would have faulted her for choosing only the cancer treatment, without which the cancer would have metastasized. She subsequently went on to later have three more healthy children.

quote:

It is so acutely trite, but I'll say it anyway: We must agree to disagree.

Yes, it's got to come down to that.

But it would be better, IMO, to allow those disagreements to play out at the local level, within State legislatures rather than have one Supreme Court with god-like powers deciding such issues. I don't believe it was intended for the Court to act as a Super Legislature, depriving the people of both influence and representative government.

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
I believe this vastly complex issue comes down to whether you believe developing children in the womb are really 'human' or not.

This issue is not complex even in the slightest.

Seriously, you think these cretins really believe these children in the womb are not human beings? Of course they don't. But they can't be honest with us and especially themselves because they don't like what that reveals about them.

Bottom line for me is there’s nothing more selfless than the sacrifice of fostering a mew life into the world. It is a power and blessing of creation like unto God’s own given to us by Him. To the extent we can use it responsibly and for edification is a demonstration of our will to be with God when our life ends. Those who use it selfishly and destructively are choosing eternity with darkness and oppression. You choose. I believe aborted babies are not lost forever. Their spirits live on and will stand as witnesses at our judgment. We can change our hearts now in this life and choose righteousness and save ourselves. When our mortal trial is over, it’s too late. That’s my belief.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
Rape and Incest are 'false flag arguments

I prefer the term "red herring." I've rarely been able to get a pro-choice advocate to agree to a hypothetical law that would ban all abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or health of the mother. Throw in as many exceptions as you want--they'll never accept it. They want the choice.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Bottom line for me is there’s nothing more selfless than the sacrifice of fostering a mew life into the world. It is a power and blessing of creation like unto God’s own given to us by Him.

Every new soul is a world made new.

quote:

Originally posted by P226RN:
With that let me say that the Texas abortion law is not something I can support as it stands.

I am a female, a republican, a nurse and I do walk the line between pro choice and also a heavy distain for abortion as a means of birth control.

However, I cannot accept the six week limit and no exceptions for rape or incest. I would not normally share this with a public forum, but I hope that it will broaden your views of the law's repercussions as it now stands. As a survivor of both rape and incest as a child I can say without a doubt that had I become pregnant I would not have known until it was far past the six week limit. Being forced to carry a child from such traumatic abuses would have been something I would not have come back from. It would have been like reliving those traumas for life.

You gentlemen may not be aware that 6 weeks is not enough for a girl to notice something is amiss. Stress, malnutrition, over exercising, medical conditions and more can cause a girl to miss her period or to even have the length of time between them extended regularly. So if a young girl or woman misses a period and doesn't figure it out until 8 wks they are out of luck?

Thank you for your insights and kudos for having the courage to speak up as you have

I am an agnostic. That means I'm neither particularly religious, nor am I a committed atheist. My views on abortion have been that it's been egregiously over-employed, but there are circumstances in which it's a regrettable, but justifiable procedure.

I had thought, up until now, that detection of a heartbeat was a reasonable determining factor, but you have shown me that even that is not quite so clear-cut. Now I'm again not certain where the lines ought be drawn.

quote:

Originally posted by P226RN:
And, I am praying for this country as it feels pretty dark right now in many ways.

Indeed

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Not a single man in this thread would tolerate even 1 min of the government telling them they had to have an unwanted child if it were men who had children.

None of you, and you know it, too. Don't even bother... hypocrites, the whole lot of you. Indignant, bloviating, meddlesome, hypocrites, every man in this thread supprting this crazy Texas law.

46and2, I am not calling you out for your opinion or the way you expressed it. And I'm not suggesting you're entirely incorrect in your assertion. I only wish to point out that if more arguments were more calmly-expressed and less confrontational, perhaps this debate wouldn't be quite so emotionally-charged and so intractable to solution?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
This issue is not complex even in the slightest.

I beg to disagree. Were it not complex, it wouldn't be so resistant to a solution.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
Seriously, you think these cretins really believe these children in the womb are not human beings?

Of course they don't. E.g.: You know every last one of them will support the charge of double-homicide for the murder of a pregnant woman--particularly if it was committed with a firearm.

But I'm not really sure questioning the motives of either side necessarily leads us closer to coming up with a solution...?

I think this is only complex to those who aren’t convinced of a basic principle or haven’t applied it yet. We don’t sacrifice the innocent and helpless for convenience.

^^^Well Stated, and Succinctly so!