Contraception v s abortion

The Golden Miller

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that standard then, we're all just 'clumps of cells' when you use such reductive definitions. The arbitrary point between pre- and post-implantation is a useful determinant point IMO when deciding the point at which a pregnancy begins.

That arbitrary point is useful so we don't end up with nonsense like 'a little bit pregnant' - either a woman is pregnant, or she isn't, and as I understand their use, contraceptives prevent pregnancy from occurring, whereas an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has begun by implantation.

They're two completely unrelated arguments as far as I understand both are completely different stages in the human reproductive cycle.

I'm open to correction on that though?

It's pretty spot on, but certain people like being tedious and blur the lines so they can say "you can't criticise abortion because you support it too in a roundabout way so are a hypocrite with no leg to stand on"

Tarzana2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that standard then, we're all just 'clumps of cells' when you use such reductive definitions.

Isn't that her point though? That pre-implantation cells can be considered the beginnings of a person, even if they are just a clump of cells, seeing as what we are after implantation is still just a clump of cells.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that standard then, we're all just 'clumps of cells' when you use such reductive definitions. The arbitrary point between pre- and post-implantation is a useful determinant point IMO when deciding the point at which a pregnancy begins.

That arbitrary point is useful so we don't end up with nonsense like 'a little bit pregnant' - either a woman is pregnant, or she isn't, and as I understand their use, contraceptives prevent pregnancy from occurring, whereas an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has begun by implantation.

They're two completely unrelated arguments as far as I understand both are completely different stages in the human reproductive cycle.

I'm open to correction on that though?

I understood the question in the OP to be about destruction of unimplanted embryos though rather than specifically about ending pregnancies. Why, if our law on abortion is only about preventing women from ending pregnancies, is it expressed in terms of embryos having an automatic right to life? They don't, unless they are implanted inside a pregnant woman. Other embryos (in tests tubes or in the woman's Fallopian tubes) have no right to protection.

So it seems to be about stopping women from ending their pregnancies, not about protecting embryos at all really. Who cares if a woman is a little bit pregnant or not, what matters is when an embryo is given th protection the law says it is entitled to, and why this doesn't happen directly at conception.

One eyed Jack

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Isn't that her point though? That pre-implantation cells can be considered the beginnings of a person, even if they are just a clump of cells, seeing as what we are after implantation is still just a clump of cells.

I'd agree with that, but I don't know if that's the line of argument volchista was going down either tbh.

I think the OP is conflating the two different stages as one in order to claim there's no difference between contraception and abortion, which, IMO, is failing to recognise the essential difference between the two points.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I understood the question in the OP to be about destruction of unimplanted embryos though rather than specifically about ending pregnancies. Why, if our law on abortion is only about preventing women from ending pregnancies, is it expressed in terms of embryos having an automatic right to life? They don't, unless they are implanted inside a pregnant woman. Other embryos (in tests tubes or in the woman's Fallopian tubes) have no right to protection.

So it seems to be about stopping women from ending their pregnancies, not about protecting embryos at all really. Who cares if a woman is a little bit pregnant or not, what matters is when an embryo is given th protection the law says it is entitled to, and why this doesn't happen directly at conception.

It doesn't happen at conception because as you point out, the embryo isn't implanted so pregnancy hasn't begun yet?

(I'm using the question mark because I'm wondering why is that not obvious, or am I misunderstanding something?)

If I recall correctly, if the RCC had their way at the time, Irish law would have been written to protect the embryo at the point of conception. They made the arbitrary point then at implantation to get around the RCC doctrine.

Irish law effectively does what it says on the tin so to speak - 'Protection of Life During Pregnancy'.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It doesn't happen at conception because as you point out, the embryo isn't implanted so pregnancy hasn't begun yet?

(I'm using the question mark because I'm wondering why is that not obvious, or am I misunderstanding something?)

If I recall correctly, if the RCC had their way at the time, Irish law would have been written to protect the embryo at the point of conception. They made the arbitrary point then at implantation to get around the RCC doctrine.

Irish law effectively does what it says on the tin so to speak - 'Protection of Life During Pregnancy'.

My question really is, on what moral grounds then? If it were to protect the embryo, then why is the MAP okay, and why do test tube embryos not get similar protection?

If it's actually about controlling women's behaviour by preventing them from having more say over their pregnancies, and not about protecting the embryos natural right to life (if it has one) then why is that still acceptable in a country where individual liberties take priority over the common good most of not all of the time?
We don't put bad people in prison unless they've actually committed a crime, and even then, usually not for life, even when that would clearly be in the common good, for instance.

So if we've moved the reason for the ban on abortion away from the embryos supposed right to life into simple control of women's pregnancies, can we still justify the ban, morally speaking?

Samaris

This isn't going to be popular, but here goes.

The "right to life" is referring, in general to the right not to have life removed from you, it us a 'sacred' right of an individual. Individual implies separate, in its own right, a discrete living creature. So then, is a foetus a discrete living creature? No, it is not. It is not able to survive on its own ability outside the womb until its at least 22 weeks, and to be honest, that's pushing it. But many places that allow abortion don't allow it after that point for...really, much that reason.

Ok, arguments against:

'So babies should be allowed to DIE? They can't survive without their parents!'
Yes, they can. They can survive outside the womb, and while dependant, they are discrete individuals unreliant at the most basic level on another body.

'Foetus' show reactions and movement before then?'
Yes, they do. And before that point, it is entirely on the will of the prospective parent whether they give over their body to another potential human for x months. Also, by the point they are showing such reactions, it is very unlikely that a abortion would be allowed.

'So are you saying that if someone is horribly injured and on life support, they should be allowed die because their body isn't capable of supporting itself?'
Irrelevant to the topic at hand, they are not reliant on another human body for a start, and secondly, they already are and have been a discrete individual for however long before.

'Life begins at conception, this is FACT and therefore they have the right to life whatever you say.'
Well, that's the eternal debate, isn't it? In my view, a mated sperm and ova is not a human being, it is a clump of genetic information that might, if a million things go right, create a human being. But at this point, it is no more a human being than 00011010010001101 is Monkey Island. And I would not feel a huge amount of guilt about performing a hard drive cleanup by taking the morning after pill any more than I would deleting a few ones or zeros there.*

'Did you really just compare an abortion to a computer game?!! You're a horrible person'
Sigh, bloody Internet. Thank you, now back to the topic at hand.

* Mind you, sensible contraception and taking a bit of care in terms of safe sex is always preferable. The morning after pill is back up in an emergency, rather than to be relied upon continuously.

asherbassad

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation. I read that the definition of pregnancy was changed by the medical profession when the pill came out in 1970s to implantation which seems like a v cynical move. How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion, does it seem like drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

I've seen sperm under the microscope and fcuk me but do they look alive and eager. I kills millions of these little half humans every time I tug myself.

Am I a killer or just a wanker?

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'd agree with that, but I don't know if that's the line of argument volchista was going down either tbh.

I think the OP is conflating the two different stages as one in order to claim there's no difference between contraception and abortion, which, IMO, is failing to recognise the essential difference between the two points.

There are some contraception that can act as abortifacients IF conception already occurred but there is no way of knowing.

The map is one and so is the coil, they prevent and they terminate. But no one can know because there's no way of knowing.

I think this is the ops question. How are they reconcilable with Irish law?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

My question really is, on what moral grounds then? If it were to protect the embryo, then why is the MAP okay, and why do test tube embryos not get similar protection?

If it's actually about controlling women's behaviour by preventing them from having more say over their pregnancies, and not about protecting the embryos natural right to life (if it has one) then why is that still acceptable in a country where individual liberties take priority over the common good most of not all of the time?
We don't put bad people in prison unless they've actually committed a crime, and even then, usually not for life, even when that would clearly be in the common good, for instance.

So if we've moved the reason for the ban on abortion away from the embryos supposed right to life into simple control of women's pregnancies, can we still justify the ban, morally speaking?

It took me a couple of reads to get where you're coming from, but I actually agree with you that the ban on abortion itself isn't morally justifiable, that a woman should have ultimate control over her own body. I'd argue that bodily integrity is a human right, and that a woman's right to bodily integrity should take precedence over the right to life of the unborn.

I've always disagreed with the 'right to life' position and argued that pregnancy should be looked at from a quality of life perspective, and to that end the 8th amendment should be repealed to give precedence to the pregnant woman's quality of life as opposed to the right to life of the unborn.

zeffabelli

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It took me a couple of reads to get where you're coming from, but I actually agree with you that the ban on abortion itself isn't morally justifiable, that a woman should have ultimate control over her own body. I'd argue that bodily integrity is a human right, and that a woman's right to bodily integrity should take precedence over the right to life of the unborn.

I've always disagreed with the 'right to life' position and argued that pregnancy should be looked at from a quality of life perspective, and to that end the 8th amendment should be repealed to give precedence to the pregnant woman's quality of life as opposed to the right to life of the unborn.

I look at from a no right is absolute position.

Irish legislation is so ad hoc. You have children's rights, unborn rights.... Where are my god damned rights?

Cookie_Monster

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

43rd Trimester?

Some baby for it to be an 11 year pregancy!!!

Liane Cartman: [At the Unplanned Parenthood Clinic] I want to have... an abortion.

Nurse Goodly: Oh, well, we can do that. This must be a very difficult time for you, Mrs...

Liane Cartman: Cartman. Yes, it's such a hard decision but I just don't feel like I can raise a child in this screwy world.

Nurse Goodly: Yes, Ms. Cartman, if you don't feel fit to raise a child, an abortion probably is the answer. Do you know the actual time of conception?

Liane Cartman: About 8 years ago.

Nurse Goodly: [thinking] I see... So the fetus is...

Liane Cartman: 8 years old.

Nurse Goodly: Ms. Cartman, 8 years old is a little late to be considering abortion.

Liane Cartman: Really?

Nurse Goodly: Yes, this is what we would refer to as the 40th trimester.

traprunner

Not another abortion thread

nozzferrahhtoo

Cold War Kid wrote: »

When life starts in the womb (in my opinion that's when sentience commences)

I am curious, is that an opinion with any actual real world basis... or is it just... you know... an opinion?

I am also curious what it means for "life to start" in your sentence. As far as I see it it is "life" to one degree or another all the way down. From the parents who got jiggy, to the gametes that found each other, to the zygote that was formed by their union, all the way along to the baby that pushed its way out into the world. The whole thing is an ongoing life cycle. So what exactly "starts" and when?

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye it's tough because it's morally wrong and they know they are killing their unborn child, and what makes it even tougher for most is that they know deep down they could have it but just aren't arsed and are selfish as it might put them out a bit down the road

Well that is quite the diatribe you spewed just there. Thankfully little to none of it is true. Firstly there is nothing morally wrong that I can see with early term abortions, nor I note have you provided any arguments other than assertion to suggest there is.

Secondly there are multiple motivations for seeking abortion in the world. That they all can not be arsed and are just selfish is simply a fetid little propaganda narrative you erect in order to belittle them and their choices.

Samaris wrote: »

Well, that's the eternal debate, isn't it? In my view, a mated sperm and ova is not a human being, it is a clump of genetic information that might, if a million things go right, create a human being. But at this point, it is no more a human being than 00011010010001101 is Monkey Island.

Nice. The analogy I tend to use is that a zygote is no more a human being than a blue print for a house... is itself a house. But essentially that is the same analogy with less comedy

Huntergonzo

Pity abortion isn't legal, might save us from some really stupid threads on boards.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

By that standard then, we're all just 'clumps of cells' when you use such reductive definitions. The arbitrary point between pre- and post-implantation is a useful determinant point IMO when deciding the point at which a pregnancy begins.

That arbitrary point is useful so we don't end up with nonsense like 'a little bit pregnant' - either a woman is pregnant, or she isn't, and as I understand their use, contraceptives prevent pregnancy from occurring, whereas an abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that has begun by implantation.

They're two completely unrelated arguments as far as I understand both are completely different stages in the human reproductive cycle.

I'm open to correction on that though?

Humans are made out of cells, but our humanity is in our 'selves'

ShaShaBear

I'm struggling to see how people can say that a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted is a potential life to be protected, but that an individual sperm or egg is not.
Someone suggested that it was because a sperm or egg cell is, on it's own, not enough to create human life. They were missing other "ingredients".

By that same argument, an embryo prior to implantation is also missing the ingredient that is scientifically necessary to give it the potential of life - that is the physical connection to its mother. If the embryo is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then it is deprived of the ingredient it needs to become "alive" and to develop any further. Just so that a condom prevents the sperm from entering the vagina, and the pill prevents the egg from leaving the ovary. They are all methods taken to prevent all of the "ingredients" of a potential life from coming together.

A bag of flour alone is not a cake. Neither is cake batter unless it gets into a working oven.

You know what's great? Sex.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well that is quite the diatribe you spewed just there. Thankfully little to none of it is true. Firstly there is nothing morally wrong that I can see with early term abortions, nor I note have you provided any arguments other than assertion to suggest there is.

I'd be curious to understand why you apply the, IMO, rather vague "early term" with regard to an arbitrary point between an abortion being moral, or past that point being immoral, and where exactly is your arbitrary point, based upon your personal morality?

I've always argued that the only person who's personal morality is actually relevant with regard to their reproductive choices is the individual themselves.

From an ethical point of view, I would argue that there should be no set point at which a woman should be forced, by any law, to continue to remain pregnant should she choose not to do so, and that it stems from that then that a woman should not be forced, by any law, to give birth, should she choose not to do so.

The Groningen Protocol in The Netherlands provide a good example for what I would like to see applied in Irish law, but for that to be implemented first of course we would have to have a referendum to legislate for euthanasia in Ireland.

One eyed Jack

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I'm struggling to see how people can say that a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted is a potential life to be protected, but that an individual sperm or egg is not.
Someone suggested that it was because a sperm or egg cell is, on it's own, not enough to create human life. They were missing other "ingredients".

By that same argument, an embryo prior to implantation is also missing the ingredient that is scientifically necessary to give it the potential of life - that is the physical connection to its mother. If the embryo is prevented from implanting into the uterus, then it is deprived of the ingredient it needs to become "alive" and to develop any further. Just so that a condom prevents the sperm from entering the vagina, and the pill prevents the egg from leaving the ovary. They are all methods taken to prevent all of the "ingredients" of a potential life from coming together.

A bag of flour alone is not a cake. Neither is cake batter unless it gets into a working oven.

It's crude, but it's a damned infallible analogy!

I'd like to see what arguments could be presented to refute it tbh, as I can't think of one off the top of my head myself! That's why I believe discussions like these are necessary, because the argument you present above is one I'd never have even considered making before now, as common and all as it is to equate pregnancy with 'a bun in the oven'.

The Diddakoi

acb121 wrote: »

Children are innocent little beings without any pre-concieved or indoctrinated opinions or attitudes....

Anybody who has witnessed the birth of a child and spent time with that child in its most early and vunerable moments of life would not judge them on whether they are wanted or not. They are innocent and blameless.

Not according to the Catholic church they aren't, until Baptised they are full of sin.

The Corinthian

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I'm pondering something - how on the one hand is the pill, morning-after pill, implant etc. legal whilst abortion isn't? I'd be anti abortion on demand myself but I can't get around how the medical profession doesn't agree that life begins at conception, the next step being implantation. I read that the definition of pregnancy was changed by the medical profession when the pill came out in 1970s to implantation which seems like a v cynical move. How many embryos are being destroyed every year by the anti implantation effect of the pill etc with no outcry whilst on the other hand so many are so anti abortion, does it seem like drawing an arbitrary line in the sand?

BTW, alive doesn't mean a lot, to begin with. Blood cells are alive, but that hardly imbues them with any special status. So what I think you were looking for was the term organism.

But why the contradictions? Why are the morning after pill or even the pill legal, even though their actions can be abortive rather than contraceptive?

Because we're human and we will bend the rules, invent all sorts of crap and rename things so that they fit with the World view that we want them to fit and we can feel better about ourselves while getting what we want. So legislation tends to be ad hoc, and sometimes contradictory as someone else pointed out.

Just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and you'll be fine.

Cold War Kid

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am curious, is that an opinion with any actual real world basis... or is it just... you know... an opinion?

An opinion.

I am also curious what it means for "life to start" in your sentence. As far as I see it it is "life" to one degree or another all the way down. From the parents who got jiggy, to the gametes that found each other, to the zygote that was formed by their union, all the way along to the baby that pushed its way out into the world. The whole thing is an ongoing life cycle. So what exactly "starts" and when?

Sentience kicking in, as I clearly said.
I don't think you're "curious" at all, but it's a standard phrase used as part of an unnecessarily sneery tone.

I'm not in favour of late-term abortions - an opinion I'm entitled to. I don't see an issue with early-term.

What is it with some pro choice people feeling the need to ridicule even moderately pro life outlooks?
And why do they tend to be really compassionate in every other context but suddenly they're cold as ice in relation to a fully formed foetus (not a clump of cells)?

c_man

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

osarusan

c_man wrote: »

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

He wouldn't get pregnant.

The Corinthian

Cold War Kid wrote: »

Sentience kicking in, as I clearly said.

So someone in a coma is not a person?

This is the problem I have with a lot of these silly definitions of personhood; sentience, sapience, a nervous system and so on. They tend not to stand up to much examination and when they eventually fail we have to add on-the-fly caveats like "but even if they no longer have X, they're still people because they used to have it".

Which of course is bollocks, because you're really saying that it's a person because they have X and then saying that they're not really a person because they have X after all. It no longer defines their personhood. But it did. Sort of.

Like it or not the safest definition is probably a Homo Sapien Organism, which is basically a zygote onward. Of course whether it has any right to life is another, completely different, discussion - just because you have a right to life, this doesn't mean that right supersedes all other rights for everyone else - but few people can think so coldly.

Instead we need to invent these silly definitions of what's a person and what's not, so we can deal with the reality that sometimes we have or want to pull the trigger and do unpleasant things and it's just easier to do so if we can redefine whom we're pulling the trigger on.

So if the entire abortion debate is still framed in terms of whether it is an 'unborn child' or 'ball of cells' for you, then chances are you're pretty weak minded.

Now that should piss off people on both sides of the debate

volchitsa

c_man wrote: »

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

Aren't they feminizing hormones?
So I'd guess either nothing, if he's lucky (because one dose may not be enough to have much effect on a man) or if he's unlucky (because they contain very large doses of female hormones in order to work) then he might be advised to seek medical surveillance just in case. That's what I'd do, if a male in my family were exposed to a large dose of female hormones.

On the plus side, he won't be getting pregnant any time soon.

c_man

c_man wrote: »

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

He'd probably spend the next while nagging, moaning, and always feeling cold until the side effects wear off.

:pac:

RobertKK

c_man wrote: »

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

Your singing voice changes to that of a Bee Gee, due to hormones...:P

Penny Tration

c_man wrote: »

What would happen to a lad if he took the morning after pill? Accidentally of course.

Probably nothing.

However, it's essentially a massive amount of female hormones being dumped into the body, so medical advice should be sought.