Abortion

[palerider]

And the wheel keeps going around and around...nothing being said in this thread is going to convince anyone to change their mind.

You are operating from a position of faith sgt. I can point that out, but can't make you change your faith. I operate from a position of facts. It is fact that unborns are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. It is fact that according to the law, the term person = a human being. It is fact that the 14th amendment of the constitution states that no person (human being) shall be required to forfiet his life without due process. Those are the facts.

Your entire position demands that you ignore the facts and present an argument based on some sort of faith.

 

[Sgt Schultz]

You are operating from a position of faith sgt. I can point that out, but can't make you change your faith. I operate from a position of facts. It is fact that unborns are human beings from the time fertilization is complete. It is fact that according to the law, the term person = a human being. It is fact that the 14th amendment of the constitution states that no person (human being) shall be required to forfiet his life without due process. Those are the facts.

Your entire position demands that you ignore the facts and present an argument based on some sort of faith.

No, you are also acting from a position of faith. You believe that a fertilized egg is a human. That does not make it a fact.

 

[Coyote]

And they are scholarly in nature. Where they come from is completely irrelavent to the fact.

Is it? Are you telling me that if I posted articles from a pro-choice site, you wouldn't take them with just a little grain of salt? I would.

It was not my intent to bring religion into the discussion. Here is some further reading:

http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/9/2/126

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/1294/2/

But you did bring religion in by your choice of articles.

All three links mention the primary mechanism by which pills work - supressing ovulation. I'll agree with you that should ovulation occur, then yes, it prevents implantation but that is extremely rare.

I also brought in another source that said the following:

http://www.prevention.com/article/0,...30-1-P,00.html

Anti-Pill doctors and pharmacists base their stand on the fact that the Pill isn't perfect: Although it is designed to suppress ovulation and prevent fertilization, both can--and do--occur in rare cases. About 1 woman in every 1,000 who takes the Pill exactly as directed becomes pregnant in a given year. But while mainstream experts say ovulation happens only 2 to 3 percent of the time and fertilization is rare, anti-Pill groups claim both happen frequently. They say most of these fertilized eggs--in their view, nascent human lives--are unable to attach to the hormonally altered uterine lining. Instead of implanting and growing, they slough off. This theoretical action, which scientists can't confirm, is called the post-fertilization effect.


This also points out an inconsistency in your own position in support of the right to life for innocent life.

The bc pill could theoretically cause abortion in a very tiny number of cases thus theoretically ending innocent life.

The death penalty also faces the same conundrum. Innocent people have been exonerated on death row. Innocent people have been excecuted. If yu support the death penalty, you are supporting the possible excecution of an innocent life.

 

[palerider]

This discussion is getting sort of spread out. I am going to combine several of your responses into a single post if that is OK. It is hard to keep up when we get spread too thin.

Rape is a horrible and violent crime - should a woman be forced to bear a pregnancy that comes out of it if she neither wants it nor can afford it, nor psychologically handle it?

This is a situation that a man will never encounter - oh men can get raped, but they will never become pregnant from it and have the constant reminder of it for the duration of the pregnancy and maybe even after - not to mention the attendent health risks and possibility of mortality.

Tell me. Under what circumstances do you get to kill others for no better reason than they remind you of a terrible event? And if you do get to kill others that remind you of bad times in your life, does it make the bad times any better?

I don't think I have ever heard many women saying that they would NOT support an abortion in the event of rape or incest.

In order to justify killing in those circumstances, you would first have to show how the child is more guilty than a child who is the result of consensual sex. The problem with most pro choice arguments is that they don't apply equally to all human beings, they target a particular group which is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this nation was founded.

For heaven's sakes - here is a quote from one of your articles....this is hardly scientific and it includes biblical books in it's list of sources...

Simple logic demands that those who respect the sanctity of human
life from fertilization until natural death should also respect those actions
which give rise to that life. They were designed by the same Creator who
infuses the soul into each and every new conceptus. As 1 Samuel 2:6
informs us, “The Lord puts to death and gives life.”

Very selective of you Coyote and beneath you if you ask me. Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem? Your response fits it to a "T". Here is the rundown on it:


A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
3. Therefore claim X is false.

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
3. Therefore X is false.

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy because a person's interests and circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.

It was quite shallow of you to pick the bible verse which is no more than the author making a case as to why people should care while you disregard the following:

"Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a
three-fold action to these agents: (1) inhibition of ovulation, (2) inhibition of
sperm transport, and (3) production of a “hostile endometrium,” which
presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, if it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient."

"...the precise language appearing in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? “Ortho-Novum: ¼a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering withimplantation.” “Norinyl: ...alterations in...the endometrium (whichreduce the likelihood of implantation).” They claim that this accuratelydescribes the findings in the endometrium of pill users as proven innumerous scientific studies. The findings indicate a “less vascular, less glandular, thinner lining of the uterus produced by these hormones.”
One of the side effects listed for BCPs is amenorrhea. This means that
the endometrium is thinned out completely, resulting in no menstrual
flow when on a break from the hormones."

"Randy Alcorn is a Christian minister and researcher who set out to prove that the BCPs are not abortifacient. On pages 29-30 he recalls a conversation with a representative of Ortho-McNeil:

On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a
pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department.
(Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes:
Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my
religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to
give me an answer I wanted to hear. I asked him, “Does the Pill sometimes fail
to prevent ovulation?” He said “yes.” I asked, “What happens then?” He said,
“The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you
end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less
hospitable endometrium” (emphasis in the original). I then asked Hill if he was
certain the pill made implantation less likely. “Oh yes,” he replied. I said, “So
you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?” He said the
following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation:
“Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium
looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the
woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance–as seen with the naked eye–and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so”

This is a situation that a man will never encounter - oh men can get raped, but they will never become pregnant from it and have the constant reminder of it for the duration of the pregnancy and maybe even after - not to mention the attendent health risks and possibility of mortality.

So now you are saying that we shoud be allowed to kill another human being because they remind us of some tragic event in our lives? How many have you killed because they bring back bad memories of your past. And tell me, once you have killed them, does it make the bad memory go away or do you just have more guilt to carry around?

Is it? Are you telling me that if I posted articles from a pro-choice site, you wouldn't take them with just a little grain of salt? I would.

Yes it is. Review circumstantial ad hominem. I try very hard not to disregard any information based on no more than where it comes from. I may not agree with what they are trying to prove with the information, but if the information is correct and well documented, then it is correct and well documented.

But you did bring religion in by your choice of articles.

I provided information. You chose to focus on the author's reason for writing the article rather than the facts he presented. Again, review circumstantial ad hominem.

All three links mention the primary mechanism by which pills work - supressing ovulation. I'll agree with you that should ovulation occur, then yes, it prevents implantation but that is extremely rare.

Extremely rare is a relative term. For a single individual, it may be quite rare, but when applied to all of the women who take the pill or use an IUD in the country, we are talking about as many as 100,000 unborns per year.

This also points out an inconsistency in your own position in support of the right to life for innocent life.

The bc pill could theoretically cause abortion in a very tiny number of cases thus theoretically ending innocent life.

The death penalty also faces the same conundrum. Innocent people have been exonerated on death row. Innocent people have been excecuted. If yu support the death penalty, you are supporting the possible excecution of an innocent life.

Actually, there is no evidence of an innocent person being executed but I will grant you that it could happen and if it did, it would be tragic. That executee, however, did recieve the full benefit of the legal system and the evidence suggested over and over that he or she was guilty. The unborn has no day in court.

And as I have said, I personally would support a higher standard of evidence against the accused in cases where capital punishment is a possibility.

 

[top gun]

palerider;14863]Using birth control pills does cause the child to die. Birth control pills are not contraception, they are abortifacients.

Obviously you are not well versed in the ways of the Catholic Church or the medication in birth control pills. Birth control pills interfere with the proteins in the egg. And in fact birth control pills taken in high doses soon after pregnancy can cause an abortion.

The truth is that from the time fertilization is complete, the unborn is a human being. Exactly as human as you and science supports my position. Once fertilization is complete, you have a potential ball player, or pianist, or judge, or serial killer, but not a potenital human being.

Having potential is not the same as "will happen". You have every right to believe the spit second fertilization occurs no one may mess with it. I can tell you the vast majority of people do not hold that position however. I can agree that late term abortions without the life of the mother or serious birth defect being involved is a marginal decision because the fetus is so close to being viable outside of the womb. But anything before that. Any early term abortion should and I believe will always be legal.

Another error in your position. From the time fertilization is complete, the child begins chemical communication with the mother's body, directing her to prepare for pregnancy. The child is in control even to the point of telling the woman when to go into labor.

You're being ridiculous. We're not talking about a mother ready to go into labor and you know it... come on. And as far a communication a brain tumor gives your body "communication" by making you hyper sensitive to bright light. Doesn't mean it has control or president over the host.

Barely 1% of all abortions are due to medical reasons and I have no problem at all with those if the mother's life, or long term health is in danger because we do have the right to defend our lives, even if the one who is threatening us does not have any intent to harm us.

Then you do believe in killing innocent little babies. You just get to be the one to chose the circumstances for everyone else in the world. Hmmm.

I never bring God into this discussion. Pro choicers seem to have to do it. If I couldn't win without bringing God into it, I wouldn't join the conversation. My logic is flawless and entirely consistent. Let me see if I can explain it to you in more simple terms.

Killing is killing my friend and it's you that are brandishing around the word killing. You either allow for it or you don't. All or nothing. Anything else is double talk. Either people get to decide some fatal things in their own personal lives or it's all left to God. Anything else is just trying to have your claws into someone else's business.

In the case of the conjoined twins. Suppose they share a heart and that heart is not strong enough to support both. If left alone, they will die. The one who has no heart of his or her own is going to cause the death of the one who has a heart. The one who has the heart has every right to defend his or her life even if the other twin has no intent to harm. If the mother's life or health is in danger, she has the right to defend her life as surely as she has the right to defend her life from anyone who might do her harm.

Who said they share a heart? You are arguing euthanasia as a self defense case. That dog won't hunt.

What I said was conjoined twins, all separate organs, one would die if they were separated but the other would live. And if they remained connected both would die.

My argument, as is the case with every defense of my position, applies equally to all human beings and excludes none. Your argument only works for unborns and fails when applied to any other class of human beings.

Well then you would be consistently wrong.

No. The supreme court has proven nothing. Did the supreme court "prove" that blacks were not human beings when they ruled in Dred Scott that blacks were not, in fact, human beings but were property? Did they prove anything or simply make a terrrible mistake?

You know the law of the land. The Supreme Court ruling that's been in effect for decades. The womans right to choose has been proven in the highest court in the land and as I said now has decades of precedent and overwhelming public support. I don't know what I can tell you if you won't accept that fact and live within the reality.

Since you are suggesting that the woman "owns" the child like property and can therefore do with it whatever she wishes, my analogy to slavery is spot on.

You cannot enslave something that cannot even live without you, it's host.

Look... I never said it was a wonderful thing. I said the reality is you cannot stop a woman from aborting if her mind is made up. And as medication and INTERNET instruction becomes more updated every day there will soon come a time when no one will even ever know. You need to be ready to deal with that reality because there is truly nothing that will ever turn the clock back to where you want it to be.

So you are a relativist?

Call me what you like. I'm a good, fair minded person. The father of 2 beautiful grown daughters. In fact I have a lot of wonderful women in my life of all ages and even the ones who would never even consider having an abortion say the option should never be stripped away or criminalized. I gotta go with that!

 

[palerider]

You should review your posts on this thread. A psychiatrist could make a case study out of you. He could write his thesus based entirely on you. You absolutely crawl with cues. It's more than obvious that you don't even like women. Let alone understand anything about them. I wonder how you imagine you can speak for them?

Again, attacks on me rather than any defense of your position. I understand your motivation so I won't hold it against you. It has to be embarrasing to have your position ripped to shreds in front of strangers so it is much easier, and safer, to simply attack me.

My arguments apply equally to everyone and don't require that I single out a particular group. Yours don't, therefore they are flawed.

And I am not speaking for women, I am speaking for the million or so human beings who are killed, without consequence, every year for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

 

[palerider]

No, you are also acting from a position of faith. You believe that a fertilized egg is a human. That does not make it a fact.

First, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Once fertilization is complete, the egg no longer exists as an egg. A new human being exists in its place.

"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life."
The Developing Human, Moore and Persaud, 6th ed., (p. 43)

Second, that a new human being exists when fertilization is complete is not my belief, it is scientific fact.

"an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology”
T.W. SADLER, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. 1990;

Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human life from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else.”
THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE, E. BLECHSCHMIDT, ]16–17 (1977).

"The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."
M. Allen et. al., "The Limits of Viability." New England Journal
of Medicine. 11/25/93: Vol. 329, No. 22, p. 1597

"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."
John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.


And I could continue to cite credible scientific source after credible scientific source until the cows come home that state explicitly that we are human beings from the time fertilization is complete.

Now, I defy you to provide any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

 

[palerider]

Obviously you are not well versed in the ways of the Catholic Church or the medication in birth control pills. Birth control pills interfere with the proteins in the egg. And in fact birth control pills taken in high doses soon after pregnancy can cause an abortion.

I provided ample scholarly research that indicates clearly that birth control pills do not always prevent ovulation and in such cases, the child can not implant because the pill creates a hostile environment in the uterus. Read the insert in any package of birth control pills.

Having potential is not the same as "will happen". You have every right to believe the spit second fertilization occurs no one may mess with it. I can tell you the vast majority of people do not hold that position however. I can agree that late term abortions without the life of the mother or serious birth defect being involved is a marginal decision because the fetus is so close to being viable outside of the womb. But anything before that. Any early term abortion should and I believe will always be legal.

The position that the vast majority of people hold is irrelavent to the scientific fact. There was a time when the vast majority of people held the position that the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the earth. Science moves on.

You're being ridiculous. We're not talking about a mother ready to go into labor and you know it... come on. And as far a communication a brain tumor gives your body "communication" by making you hyper sensitive to bright light. Doesn't mean it has control or president over the host.

The fact remains that the unborn directs the mother's body, not the other way around.

Then you do believe in killing innocent little babies. You just get to be the one to chose the circumstances for everyone else in the world. Hmmm.

The law states explicitly that we all have the right to defend our lives if they are being threatened and the one who is doing the threatening does not have to have intent.

Killing is killing my friend and it's you that are brandishing around the word killing. You either allow for it or you don't. All or nothing. Anything else is double talk. Either people get to decide some fatal things in their own personal lives or it's all left to God. Anything else is just trying to have your claws into someone else's business.

The law allows for the taking of lives. The nature of our legal system is such that if a right is to be denied to anyone, law must be legislated that enumerates specifically which right is being denied, to whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Your all or nothing suggestion is patently rediculous.

Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to swap abortion for capital punishment or are you just a hypocrit trying to win a debate by any means possible?

Who said they share a heart? You are arguing euthanasia as a self defense case. That dog won't hunt.

Do you understand what suppose means? Conjoined twins are not separated if the separation is going to kill one unless a condition exists in which both are going to die unless they are separated.

What I said was conjoined twins, all separate organs, one would die if they were separated but the other would live. And if they remained connected both would die.

What you said was:

"Things are not always perfect. There are literally hundreds of examples. Say two conjoined twins must be separated so that one can live... but one will also die. Termination of any life is always a serious decision. But again even in the twin scenario I want the family & their doctor to decided... not me... not you... not the government."

Cleary you didn't say a thing about separate organs. Conjoined twins are not separated if one is going to die unless a condition exists that is going to result in the death of both. Such conditions always involves shared organs. Feel free to find a case in which they share no organs and separation resulted in death.

Well then you would be consistently wrong.

So when do you prove that I am wrong. So far, you have yet to prove anything.

law of the land. The Supreme Court ruling that's been in effect for decades. The womans right to choose has been proven in the highest court in the land and as I said now has decades of precedent and overwhelming public support. I don't know what I can tell you if you won't accept that fact and live within the reality.
[/COLOR]

Do you know the difference between proof and acceptance? If it has been proven, then you should have little difficulty showing me a woman's right to kill her child in the constitution. Could you show me that part?

By the way, roe still isn't as old as the ruling that declared that blacks weren't human beings that kept them enslaved and the property of whoever had enough money to buy them. The supreme court has reversed itself no less than 200 times. Suggesting that they have "proved" anything is clear evidence that you don't know much about the role of the supreme court.

In case you weren't aware of it, according to you the supreme court had "proven" that women had a right to partial birth abortions but recently, that "right" has been denied by the supreme court. So which way has the supreme court "proved" that a woman does, or does not have a right to a partial birth abortion?

You cannot enslave something that cannot even live without you, it's host.

They (unborns) are human beings. They have the right to live. If you are arguing that the mother's right to not be inconvenienced outweighs their right to live, she must own them.

Look... I never said it was a wonderful thing. I said the reality is you cannot stop a woman from aborting if her mind is made up. And as medication and INTERNET instruction becomes more updated every day there will soon come a time when no one will even ever know. You need to be ready to deal with that reality because there is truly nothing that will ever turn the clock back to where you want it to be.

Pitiful argument. If I have made up my mind that I am going to kill my neighbor because he lets his dog dig in my garden, you can not stop me. Does the fact that you can't stop me mean that it should not be against the law for me to kill him or does the law simply mean that if I do it, I will be punished?

 

[Coyote]

This discussion is getting sort of spread out. I am going to combine several of your responses into a single post if that is OK. It is hard to keep up when we get spread too thin.

Tell me. Under what circumstances do you get to kill others for no better reason than they remind you of a terrible event? And if you do get to kill others that remind you of bad times in your life, does it make the bad times any better?

In order to justify killing in those circumstances, you would first have to show how the child is more guilty than a child who is the result of consensual sex. The problem with most pro choice arguments is that they don't apply equally to all human beings, they target a particular group which is diametrically opposed to the principles upon which this nation was founded.

It's not that they remind you of a terrible event - it's that a crime of violence was committed on you, and you were forcably made pregnant against your will. You may not have the money to pay for delivering a baby. You may not have health insurance. You many not have a job with maternity leave - not to mention subsequent child care costs. And more than that - YOU had absolutely no say or choice in this matter concerning your own body. You are being punished solely because you are female. In this situation - it can not possibly apply equally to all groups of human beings because only one group of human being uses another human beings body for it's well being. If it's not consentual - why should the "host" have to keep it? If it's not cosentual, or wanted - then it is indeed little more then a parasite - like a guinea worm, that WILL eventually exit but cause pain, debilitation, and expense in the meantime.

Very selective of you Coyote and beneath you if you ask me. Have you ever heard of a logical fallacy called Circumstantial Ad Hominem? Your response fits it to a "T".

No different then you resorting to "necromancers and gypsies" when I bring up the concept of "personhood".

In all seriousness - I do take sources with a grain of salt. Different sides have different agendas and will alter the facts by selective ommisions or misrepresentations - to fit their chosen agenda. My side included. Sure the argument should stand or fall on it's own but frankly, it can be a waste of time to debate it seriously. I would much rather find a source that is at least scientific and reputable and as close to being unbiased as possible. The SOURCE matters - some sources are more reputable then others, and it is not a circumstantial ad hominem to point that out - as you well know from some of your other debates.

It was quite shallow of you to pick the bible verse which is no more than the author making a case as to why people should care while you disregard the following:

Not shallow - I was simply and truely amazed that you would select that for a source. If you go down to the bottom it lists books of the bible along with it's references.

"Most (virtually all) literature dealing with hormonal contraception ascribes a
three-fold action to these agents: (1) inhibition of ovulation, (2) inhibition of
sperm transport, and (3) production of a “hostile endometrium,” which
presumably prevents or disrupts implantation of the developing baby if the first two mechanisms fail. The first two mechanisms are true contraception. The third proposed mechanism, if it in fact occurs, would be abortifacient."

"...the precise language appearing in the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) with regard to these agents? “Ortho-Novum: ¼a progestational effect on the endometrium, interfering withimplantation.” “Norinyl: ...alterations in...the endometrium (whichreduce the likelihood of implantation).” They claim that this accuratelydescribes the findings in the endometrium of pill users as proven innumerous scientific studies. The findings indicate a “less vascular, less glandular, thinner lining of the uterus produced by these hormones.”
One of the side effects listed for BCPs is amenorrhea. This means that
the endometrium is thinned out completely, resulting in no menstrual
flow when on a break from the hormones."

Even if it is true that in rare cases it creates an inhospitabe environment for a fertilized egg - I have no issue with that. Most fertilized eggs - even without birth control, never implant and are flushed naturally from the body. Reproductive freedom from an endless cycle of childbirth is worth taking that risk because no other bc method is as reliable for the woman.

"Randy Alcorn is a Christian minister and researcher who set out to prove that the BCPs are not abortifacient. On pages 29-30 he recalls a conversation with a representative of Ortho-McNeil:

On March 24, 1997, I had a lengthy and enlightening talk with Richard Hill, a
pharmacist who works for Ortho-McNeil’s product information department.
(Ortho-McNeil is one of the largest Pill Manufacturers.) I took detailed notes:
Hill was unguarded, helpful and straightforward. He never asked me about my
religious views or my beliefs about abortion. He did not couch his language to
give me an answer I wanted to hear. I asked him, “Does the Pill sometimes fail
to prevent ovulation?” He said “yes.” I asked, “What happens then?” He said,
“The cervical mucus slows down the sperm. And if that doesn’t work, if you
end up with a fertilized egg, it won’t implant and grow because of the less
hospitable endometrium” (emphasis in the original). I then asked Hill if he was
certain the pill made implantation less likely. “Oh yes,” he replied. I said, “So
you don’t think this is just a theoretical effect of the Pill?” He said the
following, which I draw directly from my extensive notes of our conversation:
“Oh, no, it’s not theoretical. It’s observable. We know what an endometrium
looks like when it’s rich and most receptive to the fertilized egg. When the
woman is taking the Pill, you can clearly see the difference, based both on gross appearance–as seen with the naked eye–and under a microscope. At the time when the endometrium would normally accept a fertilized egg, if a woman is taking the Pill it is much less likely to do so”

This is a pharmacest making this claim in an article that is somewhat akin to a "testimonial". Can you find any thing that actually verifies this?

So now you are saying that we shoud be allowed to kill another human being because they remind us of some tragic event in our lives? How many have you killed because they bring back bad memories of your past. And tell me, once you have killed them, does it make the bad memory go away or do you just have more guilt to carry around?

See above.

Yes it is. Review circumstantial ad hominem. I try very hard not to disregard any information based on no more than where it comes from. I may not agree with what they are trying to prove with the information, but if the information is correct and well documented, then it is correct and well documented.

Point taken.

Extremely rare is a relative term. For a single individual, it may be quite rare, but when applied to all of the women who take the pill or use an IUD in the country, we are talking about as many as 100,000 unborns per year.

First off - we're not talking about the IUD. What is it with just the pill? And, quite frankly - how does it compare with the number fertilized eggs that are flushed naturally and never implant?

Actually, there is no evidence of an innocent person being executed but I will grant you that it could happen and if it did, it would be tragic. That executee, however, did recieve the full benefit of the legal system and the evidence suggested over and over that he or she was guilty. The unborn has no day in court.

And as I have said, I personally would support a higher standard of evidence against the accused in cases where capital punishment is a possibility.

Yes there is evidence of innocent people being executed - less so now then in the past. It's difficult, once an execution takes place to prove because there is far less desire to do so once the defendent is dead. Given the increasing numbers of people exonerated - it is highly likely that at least a few innocent lives were taken.

If an innocent person is murdered - it makes utterly no difference whether or not they had their "day in court". They are dead. And they are just as innocent and deserving of life as that fertilized egg.

 

[top gun]

palerider;14926]I provided ample scholarly research that indicates clearly that birth control pills do not always prevent ovulation and in such cases, the child can not implant because the pill creates a hostile environment in the uterus. Read the insert in any package of birth control pills.

Taking several doses of birth control pills after implantation can cause an abortion... believe what you like my friend.

The position that the vast majority of people hold is irrelavent to the scientific fact. There was a time when the vast majority of people held the position that the earth was flat and that the universe revolved around the earth. Science moves on.

I think we are beyond the world is flat argument. I'm merely stating that most people and the Supreme Court disagree with you.

The fact remains that the unborn directs the mother's body, not the other way around.

In the same way head lice direct the person to scratch I guess. The fact is the host is in charge... not the other way around. If the mother goose abandons her nest the chicks do not survive. Who's in charge?

The law allows for the taking of lives. The nature of our legal system is such that if a right is to be denied to anyone, law must be legislated that enumerates specifically which right is being denied, to whom it is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied. Your all or nothing suggestion is patently rediculous.

You're entitled to your opinion. I was just pointing out that your own position sometimes makes you a baby killer.

Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to swap abortion for capital punishment or are you just a hypocrit trying to win a debate by any means possible?

I wouldn't "swap" anything. I think capital punishment should be an option for extremely heinous crimes when there is no doubt of guilt (overwhelming evidence or an admission of guilt). Too many people have been sent to jail and then found innocent for the death penalty to be used too quickly.

Abortion to me at least is not the death penalty due to the facts I've reiterated. Cannot survive outside the womb... mother maintains the right of control of her own body and anything therein.

So when do you prove that I am wrong. So far, you have yet to prove anything.

I'm not sure this is a "prove" situation. It's an opinion situation. Maybe I should have said... Me, the vast majority of other people, and the Supreme Court believe you are wrong in wanting to take away a women's right to choose.

 

[palerider]

It's not that they remind you of a terrible event - it's that a crime of violence was committed on you, and you were forcably made pregnant against your will.

Don't we ordinarily punish the one who commits a crime against you rather than an innocent 3rd party?

You may not have the money to pay for delivering a baby. You may not have health insurance. You many not have a job with maternity leave - not to mention subsequent child care costs. And more than that - YOU had absolutely no say or choice in this matter concerning your own body. You are being punished solely because you are female. In this situation - it can not possibly apply equally to all groups of human beings because only one group of human being uses another human beings body for it's well being. If it's not consentual - why should the "host" have to keep it? If it's not cosentual, or wanted - then it is indeed little more then a parasite - like a guinea worm, that WILL eventually exit but cause pain, debilitation, and expense in the meantime.

All of the reasons you list amount to no more than convenience. You keep forgetting to mention that the child is being killed for these reasons? Killed.

No different then you resorting to "necromancers and gypsies" when I bring up the concept of "personhood".

The law says that person = human being. Your concept of personhood is outside of both the law and logic

In all seriousness - I do take sources with a grain of salt. Different sides have different agendas and will alter the facts by selective ommisions or misrepresentations - to fit their chosen agenda. My side included. Sure the argument should stand or fall on it's own but frankly, it can be a waste of time to debate it seriously. I would much rather find a source that is at least scientific and reputable and as close to being unbiased as possible. The SOURCE matters - some sources are more reputable then others, and it is not a circumstantial ad hominem to point that out - as you well know from some of your other debates.

The sources that I gave were scientific. They were as well sourced and footnoted as any academic paper you will ever see. And it clearly is a circumstantial ad hominem to point it out if the facts are accurate no matter what the writer is trying to prove with them.

Not shallow - I was simply and truely amazed that you would select that for a source. If you go down to the bottom it lists books of the bible along with it's references.

Is the author footnoting scientific fact with the references to the bible or is he substantiating the point he is trying to make with the facts he is presenting?

Even if it is true that in rare cases it creates an inhospitabe environment for a fertilized egg - I have no issue with that. Most fertilized eggs - even without birth control, never implant and are flushed naturally from the body. Reproductive freedom from an endless cycle of childbirth is worth taking that risk because no other bc method is as reliable for the woman.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. If fertilization happens, the pill creates an inhospitable environment for a human being. And reproductive freedom is a great big load of crap. Sex without responsibility is what pro choice is and always has been about. Lets try and keep this at least as honest as our other discussions.

This is a pharmacest making this claim in an article that is somewhat akin to a "testimonial". Can you find any thing that actually verifies this?

There was a ton of science that verifies this in the 4 links that I provided for you. You can't stop reading because you don't like the case the guy is building and neglect the science he uses to substantiate his case.

First off - we're not talking about the IUD. What is it with just the pill? And, quite frankly - how does it compare with the number fertilized eggs that are flushed naturally and never implant?

The IUD was not included in the numbers. The IUD is just another abortoficient.

While they are not "fertilized eggs", the number that do not implant and die as a result, die of natural causes. There is a difference between natural causes and deliberate killing. Your question is like asking how many people die of heart attacks if you are trying to make a point about gunshot wounds to the head.

Yes there is evidence of innocent people being executed - less so now then in the past. It's difficult, once an execution takes place to prove because there is far less desire to do so once the defendent is dead. Given the increasing numbers of people exonerated - it is highly likely that at least a few innocent lives were taken.

The last time I checked (some months ago) I could not find a single case in which it is proven that an innocent person was executed within our legal system.

If an innocent person is murdered - it makes utterly no difference whether or not they had their "day in court". They are dead. And they are just as innocent and deserving of life as that fertilized egg.

Would you rather foregoe the courts and just let the laws of the jungle rule? Personally, I would rather have my day in court than be simply killed even if in the end, I was killed. Wouldn't you?

 

[Coyote]

Does the constitution give one human being the right to control another human beings body against it's will? Isn't that slavery?

 

[palerider]

Does the constitution give one human being the right to control another human beings body against it's will? Isn't that slavery?

I don't think that the constitution address biological functions. Given the nature of our law though, unless life or long term health are being threatened, killing is not a legal option.

I once had a long discussion with a fellow who went down the trespassing/slavery route and according to the law, you can't kill trespassers even if they are causing you great inconvenience unless they are threatening your life or long term health. The slavery issue opens up a can of worms for you because in order for the woman to kill the child, which is undeniably a human being, without legal consequence, she would have to own it and it is patently unconstitutional to own another human being. You would have a hard time establishing any sort of logical argument that a very immature child could actually "own" its mother as well.

 

[Beetle Bailey]

Again, attacks on me rather than any defense of your position. I understand your motivation so I won't hold it against you. It has to be embarrasing to have your position ripped to shreds in front of strangers so it is much easier, and safer, to simply attack me.

My arguments apply equally to everyone and don't require that I single out a particular group. Yours don't, therefore they are flawed.

And I am not speaking for women, I am speaking for the million or so human beings who are killed, without consequence, every year for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

Apply equally to everyone? You just don't get it. Do you? That would be impossible since only women get abortions. As for motivation, I question your integrity and intellectual honesty. I am being charitable refering your insipid diatribe in those terms. I refer you to almost any of your posts on this thread. Lot's of verbage for distration, laced with comments that reveal a severe emotional disfunction. You clearly do not like women. And that fact taints what ever argument you could make.

 

[Coyote]

Don't we ordinarily punish the one who commits a crime against you rather than an innocent 3rd party?

In this case, you are punishing an innocent party regardless.

All of the reasons you list amount to no more than convenience. You keep forgetting to mention that the child is being killed for these reasons? Killed.

What, in those reasons amounts to mere "convenience"? Inconvenient is a missed ride, an ingrown toenail, a failed physics exam. Drastically life altering circumstances are not "inconveniences" - perhaps you need to recheck your definition.

The law says that person = human being. Your concept of personhood is outside of both the law and logic

Not logic - just your particular argument of logic combined with law.

The sources that I gave were scientific. They were as well sourced and footnoted as any academic paper you will ever see. And it clearly is a circumstantial ad hominem to point it out if the facts are accurate no matter what the writer is trying to prove with them.

Is the author footnoting scientific fact with the references to the bible or is he substantiating the point he is trying to make with the facts he is presenting?

I've never ever seen a scientific paper using religious text as part of it's documentation and footnotes.

There is no such thing as a fertilized egg. If fertilization happens, the pill creates an inhospitable environment for a human being. And reproductive freedom is a great big load of crap. Sex without responsibility is what pro choice is and always has been about. Lets try and keep this at least as honest as our other discussions.

It's also a fertilized egg - now you're playing semantics. Face it - reproductive freedom is only a big load of crap when you are a man because men have always enjoyed reproductive freedom. If you consider the pill to be taboo, then you are basically condemning women to the status of broodmares. You are setting up two different standards. Married woman who are otherwise responsible but want to limit the size of their families. Condoms are not as reliable, neither are diaphrams.

While they are not "fertilized eggs", the number that do not implant and die as a result, die of natural causes. There is a difference between natural causes and deliberate killing. Your question is like asking how many people die of heart attacks if you are trying to make a point about gunshot wounds to the head.

Is it deliberate killing to create an inhospitable environment to a creature you do not want to reside in you?

The last time I checked (some months ago) I could not find a single case in which it is proven that an innocent person was executed within our legal system.

Can you prove any fertilized eggs died as a result of the pill? I doubt it. It's theoretically possible. Just as it's theoretically possible that innocent people have been executed via the death penalty.

Would you rather foregoe the courts and just let the laws of the jungle rule? Personally, I would rather have my day in court than be simply killed even if in the end, I was killed. Wouldn't you?

That's irrelevant. If the issue is that innocent human beings deserve to live - then all innocent human beings deserve to live and the supporting death penalty can not be reconciled to that belief.