Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My feeling is that there should be no exceptions to abortion being illegal. I was merely offering a compromise when I stated that rape-induced pregnancy should be excluded. Otherwise, there should be legislation prohibiting the rapist from having any parental rights. Also, an exception should be made when the mother's life would be placed in jeopardy by giving birth. Possibly.

Though I disagree, I appreciate your consistency.

James L · Feb 25, 2006, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Like I've been saying for years - I'll live to see the day when abortion is a crime.

Next up, Spliffdaddy's America will ban the use of electricity and revert to outdoor plumbing.

Entertaining post. Thanks for sharing.

Chuckit · Feb 25, 2006, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by subego

2) For those who object to people using abortions as "birth-control" might it not be more damaging to force such a miscreant into a role of societal responsibility, i.e becoming a parent? Admittedly, this is me at my most cynical.

To my knowledge, mothers are still allowed to give their children up for adoption.

Originally Posted by subego

3) Doesn't making this a state by state issue effectively penalize only poor people?

No more so than allowing the states to make laws on any other issue.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 05:55 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

To my knowledge, mothers are still allowed to give their children up for adoption.

Of course.

Though we are talking about people who abort fetuses as a method of birth control, and hence have already displayed an inability to be responsible and compassionate. I don't think one should assume that criminalizing abortion will somehow make these people more responsible and compassionate.

I would say responsibility and compassion are required in spades to make a choice as monumental as giving a child up for adoption, especially in the face of the biological changes one undergoes while pregnant.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 06:02 PM

I dunno. My feeling is that it's akin to returning you Lincoln Navigator to the bank before you default on the loan payments.

While there's some measure of responsibility inherent in the action, I wouldn't say it defines personal responsibility.

xenu · Feb 25, 2006, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

[b]

Like I've been saying for years - I'll live to see the day when abortion is a crime.

Only until the law is overturned.
As all bad laws deserve to be.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 06:09 PM

It's taken over 30 years just to get close to having the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade. I'll be damned old after waiting 30 more years for the reversal to be reversed.

xenu · Feb 25, 2006, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

It's taken over 30 years just to get close to having the opportunity to reverse Roe v Wade. I'll be damned old after waiting 30 more years for the reversal to be reversed.

It won't take that long. A few years at most.
Meanwhile, abortions will continue.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 06:17 PM

If most of the Supreme Court justices manage to die in the next few years (and are replaced by liberals) your position may have some merit. Otherwise, no.

xenu · Feb 25, 2006, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

If most of the Supreme Court justices manage to die in the next few years (and are replaced by liberals) your position may have some merit. Otherwise, no.

How many recent laws based on
1. religion and
2. the loss of rights and freedoms
have lasted any amount of time?

Believe what you want, but until artificial wombs are created (and are trivial to use), abortions are here to stay.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 06:24 PM

legal ones aren't

xenu · Feb 25, 2006, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

legal ones aren't

Whatever. Enjoy your faith based society. I would rather live in a secular democracy. Indeed our secular democracy just passed a law allowing women easier acces to the so-called abortion drug RU-486, taking the decision away from a very religious politician, who had pretty much banned it. See how it works?

TETENAL · Feb 25, 2006, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

An over the counter day after pill could prevent thousands and thousands of abortions

A quick question: Are you saying you can't get the day after pill in the US, or that you just can't get it over the counter. If so, how can you get the day after pill?

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

A quick question: Are you saying you can't get the day after pill in the US, or that you just can't get it over the counter. If so, how can you get the day after pill?

Uhh... Prescription?

Chuckit · Feb 25, 2006, 06:40 PM

I think Roe v. Wade might be overturned. Not sure it will be overturned, but it's pretty easy to make a case against the decision — it was completely outside the Supreme Court's realm of authority in the first place. I've been telling people for years that they should lobby their legislators to get abortion rights established properly, but they wouldn't listen.

TETENAL · Feb 25, 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Also, an exception should be made when the mother's life would be placed in jeopardy by giving birth. Possibly.

You sound like a misogynist.

TETENAL · Feb 25, 2006, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Uhh... Prescription?

Do you always answer a question with a counterquestion?

Prescription doesn't sound like a large hurdle, so "over the counter" wouldn't reduce the number of abortions significantly.

Chuckit · Feb 25, 2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

You sound like a misogynist.

It sounds that way, but it's not really if you view a developing child as being more valuable than an adult. I think it's a completely ridiculous value judgment to say a first-trimester fetus is more valuable than its mother, but there's not necessarily misogyny in there.

And I think prescription is a fairly large hurdle. I take over-the-counter medicine all the time, but I don't think I've taken prescription medicine this millennium. Count in that the girl would need to schedule the doctor's appointment very quickly and it becomes even more trouble.

BRussell · Feb 25, 2006, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Do you always answer a question with a counterquestion?

Prescription doesn't sound like a large hurdle, so "over the counter" wouldn't reduce the number of abortions significantly.

It's available in many states just from pharmacists without a prescription, but our FDA is still dragging its feet on a national decision about it. It's political, I don't think there's any question. Our religious conservatives not only want the government to require pregnant women to have babies, they also want the government to ensure they get pregnant in the first place.

Anyway, because of the time-sensitive nature of this Plan B, a prescription actually could be a significant hurdle.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

I dunno. My feeling is that it's akin to returning you Lincoln Navigator to the bank before you default on the loan payments.

While there's some measure of responsibility inherent in the action, I wouldn't say it defines personal responsibility.

I don't see personal responsibility being involved at all in your example.

You default on your payment, you blow your credit rating and your car gets repossessed. Sounds more like self-preservation than personal responsibility. For this analogy to work you'd have to be able to keep the car indefinitely after you defaulted. If at that point you still decide to return it to the bank, then personal responsibility enters into the equation.

Likewise, this doesn't address the egregious lack of personal responsibility that is the premise of my argument. If for some reason one could keep the car, I would imagine someone who aborts a fetus as birth control would do just that, i.e. abdicate on their personal responsibility and keep the car.

I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention your analogy doesn't contain a (critical IMO) biological component.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 07:22 PM

dammit. I tried really hard on that one.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Do you always answer a question with a counterquestion?

Sorry. I was being a jag.

Originally Posted by TETENAL

Prescription doesn't sound like a large hurdle, so "over the counter" wouldn't reduce the number of abortions significantly.

Well, the whole point is for it to be an emergency remedy to an unanticipated indiscretion, and it's effectiveness is directly correlated with how soon you take it. If you're on top of your game enough to have the morning-after pill before you have sex, chances are you're on top of things enough to just use a non-emergency form of contraception in the first place.

In addition, our health care system is a bit screwy in ways as well (I'm assuming from you sig that you're in Europe). It's really expensive, and there are all kinds of state by state laws that can make things complicated for doctors to prescribe things to people below the age of 18.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I think Roe v. Wade might be overturned. Not sure it will be overturned, but it's pretty easy to make a case against the decision — it was completely outside the Supreme Court's realm of authority in the first place. I've been telling people for years that they should lobby their legislators to get abortion rights established properly, but they wouldn't listen.

Of course, you're completely right.

I would be much harder pressed to disagree with people if this was the argument given against R. v. W., The fact that it is so often argued on moral rather than legal grounds, I allow myself the (what I consider) slight intellectual dishonesty involved in combating the moral arguments, even though I believe the overturning of R. v. W. has legal merit.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 25, 2006, 07:38 PM

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

For example, if there was the "three month after pill", it would simply be taking the place of a medical procedure - yet the end result is the same.

The goal isn't to ban the 'surgical abortion procedure', but to ban the destruction of the fetus.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

It's the same as birth control pills. They both do the same thing, prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. The morning-after pill is really just 3 days worth of BCP hormones.

TETENAL · Feb 25, 2006, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by subego

In addition, our health care system is a bit screwy in ways as well (I'm assuming from you sig that you're in Europe). It's really expensive, and there are all kinds of state by state laws that can make things complicated for doctors to prescribe things to people below the age of 18.

If that is so, then I see your point. In Germany it isn't be any more difficult to get the pill after from a gynecologist than it would be to get it from a pharmacy, so I didn't see what's the problem with prescription at first.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

If that is so, then I see your point. In Germany it isn't be any more difficult to get the pill after from a gynecologist than it would be to get it from a pharmacy, so I didn't see what's the problem with prescription at first.

Can pharmacists give prescriptions in Germany?

Over here, you get them from an M.D., or you go over the counter. Those are the only choices.

goMac · Feb 25, 2006, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

It's easier than knowing you had a child--and killed it.

A child before 3 months isn't alive.

I keep seeing these billboards in town about how a fetus has fingerprints at 9 weeks or whatever. I hate to be crude, but I can go find roadkill out on the street that has fingerprints. That doesn't make the roadkill alive either. I could probably go find a prosthetic dummy with fingerprints? Is that alive now too?

It just disgusts me that people can get all upset about a woman pulling a clump of cells out of her body when it's less alive and feeling than the cow that was killed for their steak dinner.

TETENAL · Feb 25, 2006, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Can pharmacists give prescriptions in Germany?.

No, they can't. But if it were "over the counter" you would still have to buy it in a pharmacy. You can't in Germany; you need a prescription from a gynecologist, who will then just hand you out the pills. That isn't much more difficult than going to a pharmacy that will hand you out the pills.

Kevin · Feb 25, 2006, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Moderator

ok. so are you telling me that, say an hour after an egg becomes fertilized. There is a living, feeling, thinking baby in the womans womb?

I am saying no one knows what it really is. we can make guesses, but there is no facts.

I would like to be on record as saying. Umm. No. Not the case. But if Pat Robertson says it it must be true.

I would like to be on record as saying that Pat Robertson is not someone I look up to. The man has lost his marbles.

Now kindly remove that foot from your mouth, and stop projecting.

Montezuma58 · Feb 25, 2006, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

For example, if there was the "three month after pill", it would simply be taking the place of a medical procedure - yet the end result is the same.

The goal isn't to ban the 'surgical abortion procedure', but to ban the destruction of the fetus.

I don't consider the morning after pill an abortion. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting a in the wall of the uterus. Fertilization is no guarantee of a pregnancy. Under normal circumstances 50% of fertilized eggs implant in the uterine wall resulting in a pregnancy. On top of that when the medication is taken there is no way to know for sure if the sex act resulted in a fertilized egg to begin with.

Abortion is the termination of an established pregnancy. Birth control is interfering with the mechanics of reproduction to reduce the possibility of a pregnancy. If you consider the morning after pill an abortion then you would also have to add IUDs to the list since they use the same basic method to prevent pregnancy. The only difference between an IUD and the morning after pill is that one is planned before having sex and the other isn't.

Kevin · Feb 25, 2006, 09:06 PM

Yeah I am iffy on the whole morning after pill. I don't have enough info to make a decision either way.

subego · 09:24 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Yeah I am iffy on the whole morning after pill. I don't have enough info to make a decision either way.

Are you iffy on birth control pills?

Edit, changed statement to question. Phrasing it as a statement was unnecessarily (and unintentionally) confrontational

Kevin · Feb 25, 2006, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Are you iffy on birth control pills?

Nope, but I know what they do.

I am only iffy about the morning after pill because of my lack of knowledge about it, not because of anything I KNOW.

Maybe "iffy" was a bad word.

Maybe I should have said I hadn't made my mind up because of lack of knowledge on the subject.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nope, but I know what they do.

I am only iffy about the morning after pill because of my lack of knowledge about it, not because of anything I KNOW.

Maybe "iffy" was a bad word.

Maybe I should have said I hadn't made my mind up because of lack of knowledge on the subject.

FWIW I believe (unsurprisingly, I guess) I was correct with my previous statement that the MAP does the exact same thing as BCPs, functions in exactly the same way, and it is in fact only a higher dosage of BCP hormones.

Montezuma58 · Feb 25, 2006, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by subego

FWIW I believe (unsurprisingly, I guess) I was correct with my previous statement that the MAP does the exact same thing as BCPs, functions in exactly the same way, and it is in fact only a higher dosage of BCP hormones.

There are two types of birth control pills. Both types make the uterus unsuitable for a pregnancy. The more commonly used pill also has a hormone that suppresses ovulation so there isn't an egg to get fertilized in the first place.

Chuckit · Feb 25, 2006, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

For example, if there was the "three month after pill", it would simply be taking the place of a medical procedure - yet the end result is the same.

The same is true of abstinence. I guess we better go make babies, because apparently it's wrong not to. Every minute we're not having sex, we're keeping our reproductive cells from joining with somebody else's reproductive cells, which is apparently the same as an abortion.

subego · Feb 25, 2006, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The same is true of abstinence. I guess we better go make babies, because apparently it's wrong not to. Every minute we're not having sex, we're keeping our reproductive cells from joining with somebody else's reproductive cells, which is apparently the same as an abortion.

Miscarriage. God's way of performing an abortion.

Wet Dream. God's way of giving you a hand-job.

[ducks]

goMac · Feb 25, 2006, 10:28 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

Absolutely completely wrong. A baby is not conceived until 24-48 hours after sex (with 7 days being the known max), and the morning after pill takes effect long before this. There is no baby because the sperm won't even reach the egg because of the morning after pill. Only in extreme cases would the pill actually cause a fertilized egg to be released from the body, and even then that fertilized egg is about as alive as an unfertilized one.

smacintush · Feb 26, 2006, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Busemann

Yeah, nine months of pregnancy and a lifetime knowing you have a child is easy.

Way to twist what I was trying to say . Go back and re-read the post I was replying to.

smacintush · Feb 26, 2006, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

For example, if there was the "three month after pill", it would simply be taking the place of a medical procedure - yet the end result is the same.

The goal isn't to ban the 'surgical abortion procedure', but to ban the destruction of the fetus.

I think that you are confusing the Morning After Pill with an "abortion pill" like RU 486. The morning after pill (like someone else has said) is nothing more than a high dosage birth of control. RU 486 is the one that can actually cause the uterus lining to shed after fertilization killing the embryo.

If you are good with birth control pills then you can hardly be against the Morning After Pill.

Spliffdaddy · Feb 26, 2006, 08:38 PM

I'm for more babies.

I love those.

hyteckit · Feb 26, 2006, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Excuse my interruption, but the "morning after pill" is the same as an abortion.

For example, if there was the "three month after pill", it would simply be taking the place of a medical procedure - yet the end result is the same.

The goal isn't to ban the 'surgical abortion procedure', but to ban the destruction of the fetus.

Sweet, let's ban all sexual active girls who are child-bearing age from playing sports. They might accidently abort their fetus that they don't know about.

hyteckit · Feb 26, 2006, 10:38 PM

I can't believe someone is actually against abortion for rape victims. Imaging having to wake up every morning and be reminded of the traumatic rape incident, and part of your rapist is inside you. You would have to suffer through this for 9 months. Then what's going to happen when the child is born? How hard is it to decide to keep it or give it for adoption. Imaging this rape victim is only 15 years old.

Moderator · Feb 27, 2006, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I can't believe someone is actually against abortion for rape victims.

Spliff is. Thats about all you need to know about him.

Kevin · Feb 27, 2006, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I can't believe someone is actually against abortion for rape victims. Imaging having to wake up every morning and be reminded of the traumatic rape incident, and part of your rapist is inside you. You would have to suffer through this for 9 months. Then what's going to happen when the child is born? How hard is it to decide to keep it or give it for adoption. Imaging this rape victim is only 15 years old.

I can see both sides of the arguement. Both sides make a good point.

I have also personally KNOWN a rape victim that had said child. She knows that said child isn't at fault, and today claims she could take the rape back she would not if it would mean she would lose the child that came from it.

I think it all depends on your attitude.

Again, not really arguing for or against. But just becauase someone is raped, it's not always a bad thing when they carry the baby as some here would like to paint it out to be.

dcmacdaddy · Feb 27, 2006, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I can see both sides of the arguement. Both sides make a good point.

I have also personally KNOWN a rape victim that had said child. She knows that said child isn't at fault, and today claims she could take the rape back she would not if it would mean she would lose the child that came from it.

I think it all depends on your attitude.

Again, not really arguing for or against. But just becauase someone is raped, it's not always a bad thing when they carry the baby as some here would like to paint it out to be.

Like you said, carrying the fetus to term is not in and of itself a bad thing. Your friend made a choice to do that. But, she still had the choice. Being FORCED to carry a fetus against the rape victim's wishes is horribly cruel and that's what many here find so shocking about Spliffdaddy's stance, namely that a victim of rape should be forced to carry to term the fetus growing inside of her whether or not that is her wish.

Kevin · Feb 27, 2006, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Like you said, carrying the fetus to term is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Either is taking care of it

Your friend made a choice to do that. But, she still had the choice. Being FORCED to carry a fetus against the rape victim's wishes is horribly cruel

I would say that had a lot to do with what those around her was telling her. If we keep telling people that having to carry around a child that did nothing wrong is a HORRIBLE AND CRUEL!1 people are going to believe that.

Said girl I was referring to couldn't understand how someone that was raped, could comprehend now killing off a baby somehow "fixes" or "makes better" anything that had happened.

Now, again I am not saying I would ever FORCE someone to do such a thing. I am just arguing the "horribleness" of it all.

I hear more men talk about the "horribleness" of it all when it seems a greater percentage of women sees it as NOT horrible than those that DO.

and that's what many here find so shocking about Spliffdaddy's stance, namely that a victim of rape should be forced to carry to term the fetus growing inside of her whether or not that is her wish.

Well I tell you what. We take care of the whole using an abortion as a form of birth control problem, and then we will tackle the abortions that make up only a very small percentage of the overall picture.

Moderator · Feb 27, 2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Well I tell you what. We take care of the whole using an abortion as a form of birth control problem, and then we will tackle the abortions that make up only a very small percentage of the overall picture.

Why not simply provide an exception in the legislation? This is not happening in S. Dakota for a reason. It would have been easy to do..and in fact would stand a much better chance of withstanding a court challenge!

This makes no sense..why would legislaters leave out a small stipulation that applys to a fraction of abortions and would have helped the legislation survive unless....they don't want it there. period.

This "well lets just outlaw everything then we'll reinstate certain types" is total bullshirt. Don't believe it. The rape exception and the health of the mother exception would be the best thing thing they could do to for the law's survivability..except that those who wrote it don't want any exceptions.

Busemann · Feb 27, 2006, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

I hear more men talk about the "horribleness" of it all when it seems a greater percentage of women sees it as NOT horrible than those that DO.

I seriously doubt that.