Baby lives 45 minutes after legal abortion in UK

Seachmall

Seachmall wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

What ? When does it start then ? Hardly rocket science here ?

When it becomes an organism.

I'm not sure of the exact week but it's definitely not at conception.

Is that when science says it is officially a life ?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just because you put the word ''biological'' in your post doesn't make it anything more than just your opinion.

Tell me how the pro-choice position makes any sense in light of what occurs biologically at conception. It's not just chucking a word in there, it's obvious sense if you aren't in denial about it.

The problem is for you to explain to me what it is if it isn't life.

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Are you against the morning after pill then ?

It's an abortifacient.

Seachmall: Not that you need this, but:

Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is "biologically incorrect" to say that life begins when growth is first exhibited. Let me know how. I don't see why we should have a different criteria for human life over other forms of life. Even the term "foetus" in Latin means "young one".

It is a human life from that point on. Unless you're saying that what is dead, grows and develops towards birth, and ultimately death. The argument simply doesn't hold together.

I think the pro-choice side of this argument should be open and honest about what they are actually asking for. That is the right to put an unborn child to death.

If you had to choose between destroying 1000 fertilized eggs or a single 1 year old child, which would you choose?

Someone asked a similar question in another thread and I'd like to get your answer if you don't mind...

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how it is "biologically incorrect" to say that life begins when growth is first exhibited. Let me know how. I don't see why we should have a different criteria for human life over other forms of life. Even the term "foetus" in Latin means "young one".

It is a human life from that point on. Unless you're saying that what is dead, grows and develops towards birth, and ultimately death. The argument simply doesn't hold together.

It is a life but not a human life.

The organisation of life is

Cell -> Tissue -> Organ -> Organ System -> Organism.


A human, by definition, is an organism.

At conception it is a cell (or two cells). It is cell life. Not organism life thus not human life.

That cell develops over time into an organsim but at conception it is not an organism and to call it one (i.e. call it human life) is factually incorrect.

You can call it a person if you want but then you'd have to define what a person is but you cannot call it a human as it is not a human.

Edit - Yes, Fertilisation is the process from which new organisms develop but it does not happen instantly.

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you had to choose between destroying 1000 fertilized eggs or a single 1 year old child, which would you choose?

Someone asked a similar question in another thread and I'd like to get your answer if you don't mind...

Ridiculous question.

Are the 1000 fertilized eggs in utero? Or are they just discarded. That's a key question as well.

If they were in utero, and actually being allowed to grow and develop, on a purely utilitarian means it would be the 1,000. If it was the case that the 1,000 embryos were just left there frozen without any hope of life, then it would be the 1 year old child.

I'd like to actually discuss the topic rather than deal with hypotheticals though.

Seachmall: What is a life that is formed of human sperm and an ova which grows and develops to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death other than a human life.

Again, it's pure dishonesty to deny clear factual truth.

sara025

philologos wrote: »

I think the pro-choice side of this argument should be open and honest about what they are actually asking for. That is the right to put an unborn child to death.

This is what I have been trying to get the pro-choice side of this argument to do...but they seem to be skirting around the issue of aborting life after 24+ weeks...the original argument...they seem to be going around in circles talking about whether life begins/does not begin at conception

philologos

^^ Even if it was 1 week. It's still human life. The case of 24 weeks versus a born child is just pretty much indistinguishable in terms of development.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

MagicMarker wrote: »

Just because you put the word ''biological'' in your post doesn't make it anything more than just your opinion.

Tell me how the pro-choice position makes any sense in light of what occurs biologically at conception. It's not just chucking a word in there, it's obvious sense if you aren't in denial about it.

The problem is for you to explain to me what it is if it isn't life.

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Are you against the morning after pill then ?

It's an abortifacient.

Seachmall: Not that you need this, but:

Fertilisation (also known as conception, fecundation and syngamy) is the fusion of gametes to produce a new organism.

I am aware of that are you against it as essentially according to you life begins at conception ? So are as a pro lifer against morning after pill u didnt answer the question

MagicMarker

philologos wrote: »

Ridiculous question.

Are the 1000 fertilized eggs in utero? Or are they just discarded. That's a key question as well.

If they were in utero, and actually being allowed to grow and develop, on a purely utilitarian means it would be the 1,000. If it was the case that the 1,000 embryos were just left there frozen without any hope of life, then it would be the 1 year old child.

I'd like to actually discuss the topic rather than deal with hypotheticals though.

Seachmall: What is a life that is formed of human sperm and an ova which grows and develops to birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death other than a human life.

Again, it's pure dishonesty to deny clear factual truth.

Woah, what? You're the one that believes life begins at conception, what does it matter whether they're in utero?

You wouldn't be basing your decision on the egg's potential of life are you!?! le gasp! :eek:

''without any hope of life'' - interesting use of words...

Why do you want to discuss the topic? I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me, what's the point?

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

^^ Even if it was 1 week. It's still human life. The case of 24 weeks versus a born child is just pretty much indistinguishable in terms of development.

Maybe I'm being pedantic here but it is not a human life.


After one week it is a clump of cells (called a blastocyst).

A human is an organism.


They are not the same. You cannot use them interchangeably. There is a very specific and clear distinction between them.

By using them interchangeably you're confusing the matter at hand. (I'm assuming that's unintentional.)

Humans do not develop immediately at conception. This is a fact. By suggesting aborting just after conception is killing a human life is absolutely untrue. You might see that as skipping around the moral aspect but it's important you recognise it for this discussion to go anywhere.

philologos

Seachmall: there's not much more I can say other than that you are in clear denial of clear truth.

It's evident that from conception that there is a clear cycle of growth, and development towards death. It's clear dishonesty to say that growth and development towards that end is not life. It's biological revisionism based on personal preference rather than consideration of the truth.

That's pretty much all I can say to you. It's blatantly obvious that it is a human life.

MagicMarker: Why do I discuss this? - Because I care I guess that there is such dangerous falsehood around. The very fact that embryos are discarded, refrigerated and dissected for medical purposes even when there are clear medical and more successful alternatives in adult stem cells is sickening. The pro-choice understanding, is sickening, and tragic. It also brushes the real problem under the carpet, in that the only reason that abortion exists is because there has been a shift in sexual ethics in the last 50 or so years. People regard their conjugal rights as more important than human life.

wendell borton

"The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime" is a controversial paper by John J. Donohue III of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s.

"We offer evidence that legalized abortion has contributed significantly to recent crime reductions. Crime began to fall roughly eighteen years after abortion legalization. The five states that allowed abortion in 1970 experienced declines earlier than the rest of the nation, which legalized in 1973 with Roe v. Wade. States with high abortion rates in the 1970s and 1980s experienced greater crime reductions in the 1990s. In high abortion states, only arrests of those born after abortion legalization fall relative to low abortion states. Legalized abortion appears to account for as much as 50 percent of the recent drop in crime."[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

philologos

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

I am aware of that are you against it as essentially according to you life begins at conception ? So are as a pro lifer against morning after pill u didnt answer the question

I answered it a few posts ago. I'm against it, it's an abortifacient.

philologos

I've answered you twice. Read my posts above.

Here and here

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: there's not much more I can say other than that you are in clear denial of clear truth.

It's evident that from conception that there is a clear cycle of growth, and development towards death. It's clear dishonesty to say that growth and development towards that end is not life. It's biological revisionism based on personal preference rather than consideration of the truth.

That's pretty much all I can say to you. It's blatantly obvious that it is a human life.

I'm not denying that it's life. It is life. But it is not a human life.

This is not denial. This is clear and factual biological statement.

If it were anyone else I'd say you were trolling but I know you tend to be more genuine than most. However you are willfully rejecting an accepted fact. It's not every day I use the word "fact" this often.

If you want to say it's a "person" or "spiritual life" I can run with that but by saying it's "human life" you are incorrectly using biological terms. You are bloating a term which is important in this debate.

You say it's "blatantly obvious", this sounds like an intuitive argument, not an objective one. I will not concede fact to subjective arguments.

philologos

I've also asked you how can life formed of human ova and human sperm be considered anything other than human?

That's equally manifest, that is also a clear biological statement.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

I've also asked you how can life formed of human ova and human sperm be considered anything other than human?

That's equally manifest, that is also a clear biological statement.

No, that is a poor inference. Not a biological statement.

philologos

Seachmall: Your posts are usually very logical. It seems when it comes to this issue you don't see clear sense. How can life formed of a human sperm and a human ova be anything but human? - You're running away from the question.

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: Your posts are usually very logical. It seems when it comes to this issue you don't see clear sense. How can life formed of a human sperm and a human ova be anything but human? - You're running away from the question.

Will you answer this:

• Are you using the term "human" in the biological sense of the word?

strobe

philologos wrote: »

It also brushes the real problem under the carpet, in that the only reason that abortion exists is because there has been a shift in sexual ethics in the last 50 or so years.

I'll just have to pull you up on this one Philo. I'm sure you can see why if you take a moment to think about it.

boynesider

In every case of abortion that ever happened, would it ever have been such a bad thing if the foetus/unborn child was allowed the chance at life, whatever the circumstances? (excepting of course the cases in which the mother's life would have been at risk if pregnancy continued)

I am completely undecided on the issue of abortion, but that is the question that I just can't get away from whenever I try to come to a definite opinion on it.

Also, I think everyone has to consider this issue more holistically. Opinions on both sides of the debate seem to be predetermined by either political ideology or religious belief (or lack of belief), and I just dont think this is good enough.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

I'll just have to pull you up on this one Philo. I'm sure you know why.

In what way? - I'm interested in chatting about it. I don't support a repressive version of sexuality, but equally I don't support a form of sexuality that is so loose that leaves STD's and unplanned pregnancies at every corner. That's a lack of responsibility and should be tackled head on rather than brushed under the carpet via abortion.

Augmerson

This happened in 1994. Let it go man.

philologos

philologos wrote: »

strobe wrote: »

I'll just have to pull you up on this one Philo. I'm sure you know why.

In what way? - I'm interested in chatting about it. I don't support a repressive version of sexuality, but equally I don't support a form of sexuality that is so loose that leaves STD's and unplanned pregnancies at every corner. That's a lack of responsibility and should be tackled head on rather than brushed under the carpet via abortion.

so just to clarify ur against morning after pill ? But for contraception all forms ?

Only seeking clarification as there are widely used forms of contraception which allow fertilization of the egg but not implantation . And therefore as you believe life to begin at fertilisation it surely follows u would be against this ? Following your logic not mine .

strobe

philologos wrote: »

In what way?

On your assertion that 'the only reason that abortion exists is because there has been a shift in sexual ethics in the last 50 or so years.' There were abortions being carried out in BC China, ancient Egypt and at the height of the Roman Empire. That doesn't really line up with your theory that abortion only exists due to post 1960's attitudes to sexual intercourse.

I'm interested in chatting about it. I don't support a repressive version of sexuality, but equally I don't support a form of sexuality that is so loose that leaves STD's and unplanned pregnancies at every corner. That's a lack of responsibility and should be tackled head on rather than brushed under the carpet via abortion.

I agree completely that people should do their utmost to avoid sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. I'd of course advocate the use of contraception and condoms and not want people to rely on rolling the dice in terms of their sexual health or risk of pregnancy. I've never had an STD or gotten anyone pregnant (that I know of :pac:). It seems to work. (Yes, yes... I know man. So does abstinence and monogamy, I'm all for that too if that's someone's cup of tea.)

I think you'll be hard pressed to find someone that wouldn't agree that they would like to live in a world where STD's and unwanted pregnancies are no longer matters of concern.

steddyeddy

I said before Im pro abortion under certain circumastances but I have to throw my two cents into the debate regarding the point a cell becomes human.

There is debate about what is life in the first place. Some people consider a virus to be alive and some consider it simply a self replicating RNA or DNA. The basic cell itself is universally considered to be alive so the fertilised cell is certainly alive. Wheter it is human or not is a different issue. The cell itself or zygote formed post fertilisation contains human dna, more than that it contains the recombinant dna of both mother and father. Its not any other speices but human.

When I would call the collection of cells human is when It ceases to become and embryo and instead becomes a fetus. As said before I am pro abortion under certain cirmcumstances but at a certain stage I think aboirtion is making a choice for two.

Dyr

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: there's not much more I can say other than that you are in clear denial of clear truth.

It's evident that from conception that there is a clear cycle of growth, and development towards death. It's clear dishonesty to say that growth and development towards that end is not life.

So what? it's already been stated that the what exists at the start of that cycle of growth is not a human, and yet you keep using the term "life" to circumvent that fact.

That said, you probably have to consider each human life to be sacred to get into the anti abortion thing, which I don't.

steddyeddy

Bambi wrote: »

So what? it's already been stated that the what exists at the start of that cycle of growth is not a human, and yet you keep using the term "life" to circumvent that fact.

That said, you probably have to consider each human life to be sacred to get into the anti abortion thing, which I don't.

As I said Im pro abortion but when do you think a life becomes human?

IrishEyes19

I really hate the idea of abortion, but if Im being honest I've been turned to tears when Ive read stories of horrific malformations and incest/rape stories. shocking and understanable why the mother does not want to proceed.

that said, ordinary cases of abortion where the baby is perfectly healthy, well Im just anti abortion on that full stop. Just my view. I agree with the above poster. I do feel you making a decision for two people and not one.

that said, every woman is entitled to decide what she wants. I do believe that. And nothing annoys me more than being hassled walking down a street by campaigners from either side shouting and forcing their views on you. People are mature enough to make their choice on such a sensitive topic.

sara025

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Is that when science says it is officially a life ?

http://prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

"If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception....."

Seachmall

^^

A) Noone denied it was life.

A Human is an organism.

C) Find an unbiased source next time.

sara025

MagicMarker wrote: »

If you had to choose between destroying 1000 fertilized eggs or a single 1 year old child, which would you choose?

Someone asked a similar question in another thread and I'd like to get your answer if you don't mind...

holy crap are you really asking this question!? Its ridiculous & doesn't make sense to ask when the current topic here was abortion 24+ weeks & infanticide. Start your own thread asking that question if you really want peoples opinions on it

steddyeddy

Seachmall wrote: »

^^

A) Noone denied it was life.

A Human is an organism.

C) Find an unbiased source next time.

But you cant deny a fetus is a human fetus?

sara025

sara025 wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Is that when science says it is officially a life ?

http://prolifephysicians.org/lifebegins.htm

"If the claim were made that life was discovered on another planet, for example, there are well-defined criteria to which we could refer to conclusively determine whether the claim was accurate. How do scientists distinguish between life and non-life?

A scientific textbook called “Basics of Biology” gives five characteristics of living things; these five criteria are found in all modern elementary scientific textbooks:

1. Living things are highly organized.

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.

3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.

4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.

5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

According to this elementary definition of life, life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte. From this moment, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc., and barring pathology and pending reproductive maturity has the potential to reproduce other members of the species). Non-living things do not do these things. Even before the mother is aware that she is pregnant, a distinct, unique life has begun his or her existence inside her.

Furthermore, that life is unquestionably human. A human being is a member of the species homo sapiens. Human beings are products of conception, which is when a human male sperm unites with a human female oocyte (egg). When humans procreate, they don’t make non-humans like slugs, monkeys, cactuses, bacteria, or any such thing. Emperically-verifiable proof is as close as your nearest abortion clinic: send a sample of an aborted fetus to a laboratory and have them test the DNA to see if its human or not. Genetically, a new human being comes into existence from the earliest moment of conception....."

Are you against widely used forms of contraception then ?

Seachmall

steddyeddy wrote: »

But you cant deny a fetus is a human fetus?

A fetus is also an organism, so yes; it is a human.

Dyr

steddyeddy wrote: »

As I said Im pro abortion but when do you think a life becomes human?

You mean when does an embryo or fetus inherit the same rights as let us say a two year old child? The spartans would happily leave the little buggers on the side of a mountain to die. Newborn mortality rates were enormous for most of humanity's existence. I tend not get to upset about the ethical implications of potential humans not making it out into the world, whether its through mishap or intervention.

sara025

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Are you against widely used forms of contraception then ?

Oh no, not at all, I am pro contraception, I have studied enough biology to be happy with my thoughts on that, I was simply giving my two cents to the person who queried when life began...is just biology.

My opinion (as I have been saying all along & really wasn't interested into getting into the abortion/life at conception/embryo debate) is that life has begun at conception, yes, and abortions are going to happen in the early weeks of pregnancy due to contraceptions or medical abortions due to the mother not wanting said pregnancy...there's nothing any of us can do about people making those decisions, so I am not interested in debating it...I am saying I am opposed to the idea of abortion once the embryo becomes a foetus and in the stages of pregnancy after

sara025

sara025 wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Are you against widely used forms of contraception then ?

Oh no, not at all, I am pro contraception, I have studied enough biology to be happy with my thoughts on that, I was simply giving my two cents to the person who queried when life began...is just biology.

My opinion (as I have been saying all along & really wasn't interested into getting into the abortion/life at conception/embryo debate) is that life has begun at conception, yes, and abortions are going to happen in the early weeks of pregnancy due to contraceptions or medical abortions due to the mother not wanting said pregnancy...there's nothing any of us can do about people making those decisions, so I am not interested in debating it...I am saying I am opposed to the idea of abortion once the embryo becomes a foetus and in the stages of pregnancy after

this has so many contradictions in it. You stated earlier and gave a prolife version of when live begins . The belief that life begins when a sperm fertlizes an egg means that the pill is a form of abortion to follow that theory as one of the ways it prevents a fetus from forming is implementation of the egg. It dosnt always prevent an egg from being fertilised.

Terry

Funny how stories like this are coming back from the dead when there is a new Dail debate on abortion.

I smell a plant.

Also, fish and burnt toast..

sara025

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

this has so many contradictions in it. You stated earlier and gave a prolife version of when live begins . The belief that life begins when a sperm fertlizes an egg means that the pill is a form of abortion to follow that theory as one of the ways it prevents a fetus from forming is implementation of the egg. It dosnt always prevent an egg from being fertilised.

...and your point is?...

How is it contradicting?

The poster asked when does life begin...I gave him/her the answer that science gives us...

I am aware of how contraceptions work, thanks for the 'breakdown' though...why are people so caught up in trying to put a pro-life label on me when I have been saying for hours now that I am not...?
I am aware that contraceptions may kill 'life', as in 'at the stage of conception or after conception occurs'...why are you trying to educate me in something I have no argument with?

sara025

sara025 wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

I think the pro-choice side of this argument should be open and honest about what they are actually asking for. That is the right to put an unborn child to death.

This is what I have been trying to get the pro-choice side of this argument to do...but they seem to be skirting around the issue of aborting life after 24+ weeks...the original argument...they seem to be going around in circles talking about whether life begins/does not begin at conception

this ? And u chose to publish a pro life definition which by its very definition would mean anyone who believes life begins at fertlisation cannot advocate the use of the pill.

steddyeddy

Seachmall wrote: »

A fetus is also an organism, so yes; it is a human.

Well then surely aborting post 8-9 weeks is unethical. Ill just edit to say whatever about ethics abortion at nine weeks is ending a human life in my opinion so there may be choice involved but it is essentially choosing for two.

sara025

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

??? WTF does that mean? Use your words, if you have any...or are you trolling too?
I said in the above quote I am trying to get a response from the pro-choice side regarding the original comments on abortion after 24+ weeks & infanticide...

responding with faces like this just confuses me as to wtf you are getting at...are you 11 years old or something????

44leto

sara025 wrote: »

Oh no, not at all, I am pro contraception, I have studied enough biology to be happy with my thoughts on that, I was simply giving my two cents to the person who queried when life began...is just biology.

My opinion (as I have been saying all along & really wasn't interested into getting into the abortion/life at conception/embryo debate) is that life has begun at conception, yes, and abortions are going to happen in the early weeks of pregnancy due to contraceptions or medical abortions due to the mother not wanting said pregnancy...there's nothing any of us can do about people making those decisions, so I am not interested in debating it...I am saying I am opposed to the idea of abortion once the embryo becomes a foetus and in the stages of pregnancy after

Hi
Just wondering how do you feel about natural abortions, so I take it you mean when the cells in the fertilised egg starts to divide then that would be a foetus. So how about natural abortions when the mothers body rejects that fertilised egg or later has an unfortunate miscarriage would you regard that as an aborted faotus.

Is this a religious thing with you, I wrote a song for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

sara025

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

this ? And u chose to publish a pro life definition which by its very definition would mean anyone who believes life begins at fertlisation cannot advocate the use of the pill.

right....you must be 11...or insane...

you can tell me what you think I 'believe' all day long, it still wont make it true...I dont understand how you are coming up with this sh*te

steddyeddy

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

this ? And u chose to publish a pro life definition which by its very definition would mean anyone who believes life begins at fertlisation cannot advocate the use of the pill.

Doesnt the pill inhibit fertilisation?

sara025

44leto wrote: »

Hi
Just wondering how do you feel about natural abortions, so I take it you mean when the cells in the fertilised egg starts to divide then that would be a foetus. So how about natural abortions when the mothers body rejects that fertilised egg or later has an unfortunate miscarriage would you regard that as an aborted faotus.

Is this a religious thing with you, I wrote a song for you

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Ah the original troll of the thread has returned.

I will say this in bold as all the idiots here who still haven't properly read what I have posted still don't get it...

I do not give a sh*t about the debate of terminating life at conception whether it be natural abortion or using contraception or getting an abortion done medically...I am talking about foetus in later stages of pregnancy

Now, 44leto, I am not religious in any way, my opinions are based on my morals as a human being, so sorry I can't be trolled into the religious debate when it comes to abortion.

Now have you read my post properly? Go through it again now before you quote me & make another dumbass comment

dr.bollocko

Mod:

Lets cut out the needless personal stuff.

I don't really know why this story has re-surfaced but I think this thread is circling the drain at this point.

philologos

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

so just to clarify ur against morning after pill ? But for contraception all forms ?

Contraception as far as I see it acts counter to conception. I.E - It prevents the fusion of the ova and the sperm. I'm supportive of anything that fits this definition.

Anything which destroys human life is an abortifacient. I am not supportive of anything that fits this definition.

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

Only seeking clarification as there are widely used forms of contraception which allow fertilization of the egg but not implantation . And therefore as you believe life to begin at fertilisation it surely follows u would be against this ? Following your logic not mine .

I've answered your question on three occasions. I believe that life begins at conception. In order to be consistent I am against the MAP and anything else that destroys human life.

Bambi wrote: »

So what? it's already been stated that the what exists at the start of that cycle of growth is not a human, and yet you keep using the term "life" to circumvent that fact.

That said, you probably have to consider each human life to be sacred to get into the anti abortion thing, which I don't.

That is a human. I don't see what the issue is with that. It's a human life. I don't even need to go as far as saying that it is sacred. All I need to do is to say that as a human being, I stand for human rights, especially the right to life. I believe that we were all created as equal beings, and that nobody should be denied the right to life.

I was granted this gift, and I think that it is wrong that others should be condemned to death before they are born.

Yet somehow this puts me at the wrong side of the argument?

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jon Ancient Nature wrote: »

this ? And u chose to publish a pro life definition which by its very definition would mean anyone who believes life begins at fertlisation cannot advocate the use of the pill.

Doesnt the pill inhibit fertilisation?

It can but it also prevents implentation of an egg which is fetilised and creates a mucus which forms on the uterus to try and prevent the sperm fertilising the egg.

My point was and is as some posters have stated on the thread that life begins at fertlisation then surely logically they cannot suport the use of the pill as as one of its primary functions is to stop the fertlised egg implenting itself in the womb .

Thereby denying that 'lifes' ability to continue.