Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

So you wouldn't consider a zygote inside a woman's body to be a growing baby after all, then?

What age does it have to be to qualify, in your view?

There is no zygote of the morning after pill has done its job, it prevents it from forming.

_Whimsical_

seamus wrote: »

Let's just conveniently forget about those babies who are already functionally dead before the abortion, shall we?

The pro-life side have absolutely no humanity or morality. It's sickening.

This sort of generalisation is really annoying. I know you were responding to an emotive post but it's the opinion of the individual you are addressing, making sweeping generalisations about everyone with an opinion on that spectrum is not fair. Lots of people who are pro-life or uncomfortable with wholesale abortion do not believe that a mother should be forced to continue with a pregnancy that will not result in a live baby, nor do they believe that a woman should be forced in circumstances where it will endanger her or damage her health. It's not a compassionless stance for the vast majority of people.

Wild generalisations and mud slinging only polarize debate and make it useless whereas genuine conversation leads to informing people on both sides and might result in the best solution in the long run.

In the case of the Life of the Mother Amendment almost no genuine consideration was given to the appalling potential of that legislation to result in a baby being born early and being seriously disabled by that early birth and essentially orphaned in the case of a late-term termination of pregnancy. Had there been more credible consideration given to that possibility then I think better, more finely tuned legislation with clearer guidelines might have prevented that happening in the case of Miss Y. As it stands instead while I have full sympathy for that girl who endured a nightmare, I am horrified that the baby is never mentioned though his consultant has said he'll be gravely ill and never live a normal life,most likely without an adoptive family as his disability might require institutional care. His case rather than hers is one of the most horrific cases of state negligence. I think that was a case of poorly drafted legislation allowed to pass in a climate where the debate was stymied into polarized sides of pro-choice v.s pro-life, had people actually paid attention to the finer detail and not just saw it as a win for one side or the other, we might not as a nation have butchered a person's entire life.

Shenshen

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

There is no zygote of the morning after pill has done its job, it prevents it from forming.

Not really. It prevents the zygote from embedding itself in the womb, and from there grow into an embryo.

K-9

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

I already addressed this above.



Not sure how you are defining the word "psychopathic" if you are using it to refer to my post.





A poor analogy as there is a massive difference between a zygote in a box and one developing inside a woman.

True enough,.a narcissistic post would be a better description.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

Not really. It prevents the zygote from embedding itself in the womb, and from there grow into an embryo.

It prevents the egg from being released from ovary.

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

Not really. It prevents the zygote from embedding itself in the womb, and from there grow into an embryo.

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It prevents the egg from being released from ovary.

Alot of them do both of those things.

Shenshen

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It prevents the egg from being released from ovary.

It does no such thing. That would be entirely pointless anyway, as chances are that there already is an ovum in the fallopian tube. An ovum takes 5 days on average to reach the womb, and can be fertilised at any point during this time. If it was only about to be released, it would have little chance to be fertilised, as the sperm usually doesn't survive quite that long.

With all the internet at your disposal I would suggest you go an calculate a few facts before you form an opinion.

kylith

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

If they gave enough of a damn about the baby to want to bring it back in a box and bury it they wouldn't be killing it in the first place.

Throwing it in the bin on their way out of the clinic would be a more fitting conclusion to the scenario.

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Lets not forget the fact of the matter is that in the vast majority of cases people are going to have abortions in the UK because they dont want the baby not because there is anything worng with it. I would not have an issue with an abortion being carried out here in an instance where the child has no chance of survival, its a whole different ball game to abortion as a form of contraception.

But the point is that you never stopped to consider why someone who had had an abortion might want to bring the body home. To consider why someone would do something apparently never crossed your mind; you were too eager to find ways to point at them and shout 'Look! Look! Look how evil this person is!' and I'm willing to bet that a lot of your opinion on abortion is formed by that mindset.

You're 'undecided' as to whether a woman who has been raped shouldn't have to be forced to have that rape extended by 9 months and have another traumatic experience because you don't seem to have the capacity to put yourself in that woman's shoes and really try to feel what she must be feeling, or the 16 year old who 'decided' to have sex because she was afraid her boyfriend would dump her and whose Catholic school carried out only basic sex ed, or the couple who already have 4 children and the father lost his job and now they're on the dole and already having to get food parcels from the SVdP. All you do is proclaim 'Tough sht!' and call them murderers.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

It does no such thing. .

Well it does, you obviously need to do some research.

Shenshen

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Well it does, you obviously need to do some research.

I have before I posted. Wikipedia will give you all the details you need, in case you don't know where to begin.

eviltwin

The shaming of women who have abortions is horrific. I suppose we have to find some group to replace single mothers as the bad guys :rolleyes: There is no shame in having an abortion, I've done it and I am a very nice, respectable middle aged woman. I bet most people here who think of me as a murderer would like me if they met me. Until more women like me come out and be honest and show the country that abortion is not something that only affects other women or a certain type of woman nothing will change.

Samaris

You're thinking of the Pill, nox. The morning after pill - you're half-right - prevents the sperm and the egg from bonding together once both of them are in there hunting for each other, or prevents the fertilised egg from implanting in the uterine wall. After that, it really depends on where your concept of life beginning comes from.

The Contraceptive Pill is very similar, but it is used to prevent ovulation. Obviously that isn't the concern so much right after unprotected sex unless the timing was rather amazing; the sperm doesn't last that long alone.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

I have before I posted. Wikipedia will give you all the details you need, in case you don't know where to begin.

I didn't read wiki but the sources I am reading indicate that its primary role is to prevent the release of the egg.

I'v better thing to be doing than arguing over this in any case.

Shenshen

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

I didn't read wiki but the sources I am reading indicate that its primary role is to prevent the release of the egg.

I'v better thing to be doing than arguing over this in any case.

That would be the contraceptive pill. Not the morning after pill.

Seeing as you're so adamant that a zygote is already a human being with full rights, I find it a little odd that you'd agree with the morning after pill which will effectively cause the abortion of a zygot should one have resulted from intercourse within the previous 72 hours.

Shenshen

Shenshen wrote: »

That would be the contraceptive pill. Not the morning after pill.

Seeing as you're so adamant that a zygote is already a human being with full rights, I find it a little odd that you'd agree with the morning after pill which will effectively cause the abortion of a zygot should one have resulted from intercourse within the previous 72 hours.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/morning-after-pill-emergency-contraception

http://www.drmarie.org.au/ask-dr-marie/contraception/morning-after-pill/how-does-the-morning-after-pill-work

http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b

The fact is that the morning after pill is not an abortion, it just isn't so I'm not going to entertain your baiting.

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

That would be the contraceptive pill. Not the morning after pill.

Seeing as you're so adamant that a zygote is already a human being with full rights, I find it a little odd that you'd agree with the morning after pill which will effectively cause the abortion of a zygot should one have resulted from intercourse within the previous 72 hours.

Well in the interests of fairness the morning after pill can do both prevent or delay ovulation and prevent embedding of the zygote in the womb lining if there is one . Brands differ but some of them do both others just prevent ovulation.

From the Irish Family Planning association :

MYTH: The emergency contraceptive pill causes an abortion

FACT: The emergency contraceptive pill does not cause an abortion, it prevents pregnancy. It works by preventing or delaying ovulation, thereby preventing fertilisation. The emergency contraceptive pill will not disrupt an existing pregnancy.

https://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Emergency-Contraception/Myths-Facts

Samaris

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/morning-after-pill-emergency-contraception

http://www.drmarie.org.au/ask-dr-marie/contraception/morning-after-pill/how-does-the-morning-after-pill-work

http://www.webmd.com/women/guide/plan-b

The fact is that the morning after pill is not an abortion, it just isn't so I'm not going to entertain your baiting.

OK, we're all partly right and partly wrong here. The answer is a bit more complex than any of us have commented on so far, and it's really "it depends".

If you are just prior to ovulation when you have unprotected sex, and you use either copper or EC can prevent or delay ovul;ation - as Nox is saying. If you have already ovulated, it prevents implantation, as Shen has been saying. You cannot really say that it is exclusively a prevention method in terms of fertilization OR exclusively an abortifacient. You may take the morning after pill and caue a spontaneous abortion of a fertilised egg OR it may just prevent the egg from being released.

Edit: What is pregnancy? Some people will say it's a fertilised egg and some, myself, Family Planning, etc, will at the LEAST say it needs to implant first.

_Whimsical_

Samaris wrote: »

OK, we're all partly right and partly wrong here. The answer is a bit more complex than any of us have commented on so far, and it's really "it depends".

If you are just prior to ovulation when you have unprotected sex, and you use either copper or EC can prevent or delay ovul;ation - as Nox is saying. If you have already ovulated, it prevents implantation, as Shen has been saying. You cannot really say that it is exclusively a prevention method in terms of fertilization OR exclusively an abortifacient. You may take the morning after pill and caue a spontaneous abortion of a fertilised egg OR it may just prevent the egg from being released.

Edit: What is pregnancy? Some people will say it's a fertilised egg and some, myself, Family Planning, etc, will at the LEAST say it needs to implant first.

Up until March of this year the only Morning After Pill with an abortifacient effect available in Ireland was prescription only. The type of pill available over the counter that most women took merely prevented ovulation.

Shenshen

I'm curious now, how does a pill that only prevents ovulation, taken 3 days after intercourse, prevent pregnancy?

That sounds like perfectly useless medication. In 3 days, an ovum can be well over half-way to your womb, so if it doesn't prevent implantation what good is it?

Edit: To clarify a little, I'm not from Ireland. The information we were given throughout our years in school was that the regular pill was to prevent ovulation, and the morning after pill will prevent implantation. So I'm rather confused that here there seem to be morning after pills that - well, really are just regular pills?

Samaris

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Up until March of this year the only Morning After Pill with an abortifacient effect available in Ireland was prescription only. The type of pill available over the counter that most women took merely prevented ovulation.

Ah, I see. The one time I had to use such, I had to go to a doctor to have it prescribed. I hated it.

I'm glad it's finally become a bit more accepted, if it's available over the counter now.

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm curious now, how does a pill that only prevents ovulation, taken 3 days after intercourse, prevent pregnancy?

That sounds like perfectly useless medication. In 3 days, an ovum can be well over half-way to your womb, so if it doesn't prevent implantation what good is it?

Edit: To clarify a little, I'm not from Ireland. The information we were given throughout our years in school was that the regular pill was to prevent ovulation, and the morning after pill will prevent implantation. So I'm rather confused that here there seem to be morning after pills that - well, really are just regular pills?

Well they're by far the most commonly used in Ireland and the UK so they must be effective. I imagine they have less future implications for your health and less side effects. Very important to be mindful of your weight when using them too as above a certain weight, around 11-12 stone I think, they lose efficacy, and in some cases are completely useless as a result.

Shenshen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Well they're by far the most commonly used in Ireland and the UK. I imagine they have less future implications for your health and less side effects. Very important to be mindful of your weight when using them too as above a certain weight, around 11-12 stone I think, they lose efficacy, and in some cases are completely useless as a result.

Well, they would be completely useless if you happened to have ovulated on Thursday, had sex on Saturday and got this pill on the Sunday... What's their failure rate? I imagine it would be very high.

Samaris

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, they would be completely useless if you happened to have ovulated on Thursday, had sex on Saturday and got this pill on the Sunday... What's their failure rate? I imagine it would be very high.

I think that's the sort of situation that you go to the clinic about. That's what I had to do, and make an appointment with the nurse. It could have been worse, but there was an awful feel of shame to it.

Shenshen

Maybe it's time to go back to the subject matter :

How do our resident anti-abortionists feel about the types of morning after pill that will prevent implantation of a fertilised ovum?

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, they would be completely useless if you happened to have ovulated on Thursday, had sex on Saturday and got this pill on the Sunday... What's their failure rate? I imagine it would be very high.

I doubt it's very high as this was the only morning after pill in Ireland and the UK for quite a long time and I don't really remember hearing much complaints that it hadn't worked.

It seems it's very difficult to calculate efficacy rates officially though for ethical reasons as there are too many variants, with different people ovulating at different times or having underlying fertility issues, you just don't really know why a pregnancy does not result for absolute sure so it would be unethical to attribute all non-pregnancies to the pill.

Shenshen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I doubt it's very high as this was the only morning after pill in Ireland and the UK for quite a long time and I don't really remember hearing much complaints that it hadn't worked.

It seems it's very difficult to calculate efficacy rates officially though for ethical reasons as there are too many variants, with different people ovulating at different times or having underlying fertility issues, you just don't really know why a pregnancy does not result for absolute sure so it would be unethical to attribute all non-pregnancies to the pill.

True about the measuring. But I still think for this to be sold as an honest-to-goodness contraceptive, surely it would at least have to have language on the packaging advising that if fertilisation has already taken place, it's ineffective.
And maybe some instructions on the temperature method, so that next time you could save your money rather than buying one?

Samaris

Shenshen wrote: »

Maybe it's time to go back to the subject matter :

How do our resident anti-abortionists feel about the types of morning after pill that will prevent implantation of a fertilised ovum?

Rather dangerous phrasing. Many of us might be pro-choice, but have some issues with it depending on circumstance.

I, for instance, would be against abortion in very late-term pregnancies. That aside though, I have no issue with preventing implantation of a fertilised ovum. Then again, I am fully pro-choice for the first trimester, perhaps second, but I'm undecided on that and pro-choice where it is clearly necessary after that.

Shenshen

Samaris wrote: »

Rather dangerous phrasing. Many of us might be pro-choice, but have some issues with it depending on circumstance.

I, for instance, would be against abortion in very late-term pregnancies. That aside though, I have no issue with preventing implantation of a fertilised ovum. Then again, I am fully pro-choice for the first trimester, perhaps second, but I'm undecided on that and pro-choice where it is clearly necessary after that.

I would very much share your opinion, I would prefer late-term abortions to only be available in exceptional cases.

But during the first trimester, I personally don't believe it makes sense to deny an abortion. As I posted before, we regard a person clinically dead when they have no measurable brain activity. Why would we regard one as alive before they have brain activity?

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

I would very much share your opinion, I would prefer late-term abortions to only be available in exceptional cases.

But during the first trimester, I personally don't believe it makes sense to deny an abortion. As I posted before, we regard a person clinically dead when they have no measurable brain activity. Why would we regard one as alive before they have brain activity?

I don't know fully how I feel about all of this, I feel awful for women in that position though so I really would feel compassion rather any judgement.
To answer your point though I personally wouldn't compare the two, where someone is dead this is no potential for life, with a foetus there is always potential for life.

Shenshen

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I don't know fully how I feel about all of this, I feel awful for women in that position though so I really would feel compassion rather any judgement.
To answer your point though I personally wouldn't compare the two, where someone is dead this is no potential for life, with a foetus there is always potential for life.

I'm always cautious about "potential". It's just as hard to measure or quantify as the effectiveness of a contraceptive.
After all, every sperm and every ovum have potential. Not as much as a zygote or an embryo maybe, but where do we draw the line? It used to be the church's reasoning for regarding rape to be a lesser sin than masturbation, after all.

And I prefer to think of existing reality before taking potentials into account.
And the existing reality in a case where a woman contemplates an abortion is mental and emotinal distress, possibly physical distress, lack of support and even potential danger.
In my view, these have much more weight than growing cells that may or may not become a human being one day, given the right circumstances.

Electric Sheep

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I'm in college, have a part time job, pay rent etc. I'm broke basically, and have another 3 years of college ahead of me. Got my girlfriend pregnant and she's in a similar situation. Abortion wasn't an option.

Wrong. It was an option you chose not to avail of.

Electric Sheep

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

I didn't read wiki but the sources I am reading indicate that its primary role is to prevent the release of the egg.

I'v better thing to be doing than arguing over this in any case.

Wrong. It's primary role is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

_Whimsical_

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Wrong. It's primary role is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

Wrong!
Haha- sorry I couldn't resist
Read back. We've covered this one.
Actually it's rather worrying how little people know about this.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

Wrong. It's primary role is preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

I've provided link which show otherwise.

Samaris

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Wrong!
Haha- sorry I couldn't resist
Read back. We've covered this one.
Actually it's rather worrying how little people know about this.

It is rather. I'm rather sorry I brought it up! I'm not positive what consensus we've reached on it, but afaik currently it depends on the type of Pill and your own ovulation status having taken it.

Regarding your links, Daniel Handsome Sociology, all of the links I've read seem to be a bit disingenuous about it on both sides, depending on which publication you read.

_Whimsical_

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm always cautious about "potential". It's just as hard to measure or quantify as the effectiveness of a contraceptive.
After all, every sperm and every ovum have potential. Not as much as a zygote or an embryo maybe, but where do we draw the line? It used to be the church's reasoning for regarding rape to be a lesser sin than masturbation, after all.

And I prefer to think of existing reality before taking potentials into account.
And the existing reality in a case where a woman contemplates an abortion is mental and emotinal distress, possibly physical distress, lack of support and even potential danger.
In my view, these have much more weight than growing cells that may or may not become a human being one day, given the right circumstances.

I don't think that was ever the churches teaching, it was a musing of Aquinas who was a theologian/philosopher, but he wasn't dictating church teachings. I think some consider it open to debate that he ever felt that too.

I think potential is an important factor. A sperm/ovum on it's own has no potential so that's a fairly logical place to draw the line in my opinion, it wouldn't be at all as wooly as the efficacy of emergency contraceptives. A foetus of upto 12 weeks as you used in your example has undeniable potential for life though and really couldn't be compared to a dead person.

As for existing realities it's fine if you don't accept that a foetus has potential for life or a right to that life, then it's perfectly clear cut, but if you do it becomes about the competing interests of both the mother and child.

TommyOM

I have only returned from Ireland a few hours ago having travelled to the UK to get an abortion with a girl.

I have to say it was utterly heart breaking to see her keeled over in pain for nearly 2 days in some ****ty hotel room away from her family and the comforts of her own home. It is a tough enough ordeal for a woman to go through without having to travel to a foreign country to get it done.

It is very expensive as well. In my case she wanted to do it before it showed a heartbeat so last minute flights and hotels were over a thousand euros for 2 people. That is on top of having to pay over 400euros for the procedure itself (which seems extraordinary considering it is just a couple of pills). I know in the grand scheme of things the costs involved seemed trivial but I can only imagine how difficult the entire ordeal must be for those in less well off positions.

I'm still a bit numb to the whole thing, she was 50/50 on keeping it and I said I wasn't ready but I think its something you will always think 'what if' about. Some use that as an argument that abortion should remain illegal in Ireland but people will continue to travel regardless and if that is the case (and it evidently is) then it should be legal because like I said earlier, no woman should ever have to go through what I saw that woman go through on their own in a foreign country.

_Whimsical_

Samaris wrote: »

It is rather. I'm rather sorry I brought it up! I'm not positive what consensus we've reached on it, but afaik currently it depends on the type of Pill and your own ovulation status having taken it.

Regarding your links, Daniel Handsome Sociology, all of the links I've read seem to be a bit disingenuous about it on both sides, depending on which publication you read.

No sher isnt it much better that you brought it up, now more people know the truth, that they chose a different pill depending the place they are in their cycle. You might have done someone a really big favour there.

Hoop66

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

It prevents the egg from being released from ovary.

Shows a limiited understanding of human reproduction.

Don't let that stop you though.

Hoop66

Hoop66 wrote: »

Shows a limiited understanding of human reproduction.

Don't let that stop you though.

Don't let the information provided which agrees with what I have said stop you.

The Golden Miller

The pro-choice people seem to make their arguments for abortion based on the exceptions, rather than the general argument of using abortion as contraception, as the pro-life campaigners tend to do i.e stay on point. In matters of fatal foetal abnormality etc, pro-life campaigners tend to support abortion in these cases anyway, yet pro-choice campaigners continue to churn out this argument, as if it has relevance to abortion as a method of contraception.

It's also disappointing that as time goes on, pro-choice campaigners attitude seems to harden more and more on the refusal of a man to have any say in his potential child.

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The pro-choice people seem to make their arguments for abortion based on the exceptions, rather than the general argument of using abortion as contraception, as the pro-life campaigners tend to do i.e stay on point. In matters of fatal foetal abnormality etc, pro-life campaigners tend to support abortion in these cases anyway, yet pro-choice campaigners continue to churn out this argument, as if it has relevance to abortion as a method of contraception

Abortion as contraception? How many women do you think use abortion as a method of contraception?

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

Abortion as contraception? How many women do you think use abortion as a method of contraception?

So you really don't know what I mean or are just being pedantic for the sake of it? The vast majority of abortions are people just having unprotected sex, all the while knowing the consequences, yet continue to do it anyway

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So you really don't know what I mean or are just being pedantic for the sake of it?

A one off abortion as is the case for most women is not using abortion as a form of contraception. If you're going to post at least post honestly.

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

A one off abortion as is the case for most women is not using abortion as a form of contraception. If you're going to post at least post honestly.

The vast majority of abortions are people just having unprotected sex, all the while knowing the consequences, yet continue to do it anyway

eviltwin

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The vast majority of abortions are people just having unprotected sex, all the while knowing the consequences, yet continue to do it anyway

True and that's just human nature. Most people are just lucky not to get caught out. If the worst happens then it's bad luck and what happens after that is a personal decision.

lazygal

The Golden Miller wrote: »

The vast majority of abortions are people just having unprotected sex, all the while knowing the consequences, yet continue to do it anyway

Can you back this up with stats?

From reading stories of women who've had abortions, most seem to have used contracpetion of some sort, up to and including the morning after pill. What would you suggest a woman pregnant who does not want to be do? Simply accept that she must remain pregnent because a condom split or the pill she was on didn't work? You do know every woman has a different reason for aborting a pregnancy. What about a ten year old pregnant with twins because of rape, should she accept the consenquences of having unprotected sex? Should she have been on the pill in case she was raped? Should all women?

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

what happens after that is a personal decision.

In Ireland its not and nor should it be as the unborn child has a right to life and needs others stand its corner as it cant do it itself.

eviltwin

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

In Ireland its not and nor should it be as the unborn child has a right to life and needs others stand its corner as it cant do it itself.

It is because no one can stop a woman travelling to the UK if she wants to have an abortion.

The Golden Miller

eviltwin wrote: »

True and that's just human nature. Most people are just lucky not to get caught out. If the worst happens then it's bad luck and what happens after that is a personal decision.

My point being the pro choice crowd have filled this thread up with arguments which have nothing to do with the vast majority of abortions