There was no "Mistake" in getting pregnant. They know the consequences of putting a doodle in a hee-hoo. They were just too lazy/horny/whateverpathetic excuse, at the time. Its outright stupidity to have sex unprotected. Unless you want children of course.
<!--QuoteBegin--Skidzor+Dec 21 2003, 01:13 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Skidzor @ Dec 21 2003, 01:13 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Aarrgh...I can't decide whether I'm Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. I'm leaning toward Pro-Life because I think that people who get pregnant because they were not thinking should have to live with their choice. This pill is like the "Uber-Mistake-Eraser" for young women who get themselves pregnant on accident. I think that they should have to pay for not thinking and should have to live with the fact that they are going to have a child and provide for it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And what becomes of the child? How many young mothers forced to raise accidental children actually get the proper help, and give the proper care to raise a healthy child? I'd say most...but never the less there is a certian percentage of mothers that will never provide for that child properly...never show it love, spend thier life making the child pay for her regrets. For every few dozen children that with a decent family life there at least one who knows nothing but suffering. There is a difference between being alive and "life" and I feel its not right to bring a child into this world if it can not enjoy some small measure of "life".
For me personally, if I would have gotten my gf pregnant a few years ago...it wouldnt have been by a lack of responsable sex...it would have been some unforseen accident. In any case, neither of us were ready to raise a child, and seeing as we ended up hating each other, the job I had then, trying to go to school and so on...that child wouldve put all that on hold, and changed our lives drastically, not to mention that the child would never see the quality of life I wand to provide for my children one day. I wouldve sucked it up and dedicated my life to that child regardless...but so many parents dont. They regret thier children, thier selfish with thier time and money, and even physically abusive, many children are going to spend thier entire live wishing theyde never been born anyway...why should my opinion of a zygote mean that child is forced into such an existense? God knows my opinion is not going to show that child love.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 20 2003, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 20 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is illeagal to kill an eagle egg, and yet abortion is perfectly fine.
How sickening. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. Also many bird species (I think eagles included) young push their aiblings out of the nest to have them die thus allowing all the food to go to them and better their survival chances. Survival of the fittest.
<!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 20 2003, 06:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 20 2003, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Align+Dec 20 2003, 05:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Align @ Dec 20 2003, 05:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a bunch of cells. Like a plant. Or a muscle. EDIT: If "killing" such a clump of cells is illegal, then we shouldn't use penicillin or any other medicin, because OMG teh bacteria are alife too! When it has developed a brain though, then I can see why you would argue against it. However, the MAPill can't be used(successfully) at that stage anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Will that bacteria develop into a human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually if human DNA is injected into a bacterial cell that has had its DNA removed when we have the technology to allow it to grow, then yes it can grow into a human. Isn't genetics amazing. Unfortuneatly I find the people most opposd to abortion have no idea what they are talking about. They know nothing of gametes, zygotes, meiosis, mitosis, DNA, chromosomes, cells, genes, or how stem cells really work or even the state of the embryo at different stages of pregnancy. Yet they still continue to argue against those who have much more experience in those field than they do. And the MAP as I see it will mostly be used by people whose condoms break or get drunk at a party.
So what if this pill encourages teenage promiscuity? Does the government have a right to regulate your private life in such a way? No. What you choose to do with your new found freedom is your own choice. You can't regulate it and the govt can ONLY make a decision based on the law.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Dec 21 2003, 01:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Dec 21 2003, 01:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 20 2003, 01:31 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 20 2003, 01:31 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is illeagal to kill an eagle egg, and yet abortion is perfectly fine.
How sickening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. Also many bird species (I think eagles included) young push their aiblings out of the nest to have them die thus allowing all the food to go to them and better their survival chances. Survival of the fittest. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see.
It's time to cull the herd of the human race.
The way people responded to my comment truely shows how souless we've become:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eagles are an endangered species. If humans were the same, the abortion rate would be rather low, don't you think? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eagles are an endangered species that are basically on the verge of extinction (or were). Quite frankly, that was our fault (Go DDT!) and we managed to fix that. Naturally, destroying an eagles egg would be highly detrimental to the population so every single one is essential to the survival of the species.
On the other hand, things like the pill just ensure that one less human is born out of millions that are every single day. Really, the comparison is rather void, there are many human beings in the world and stopping one from potentially being born isn't going to devastate the entire human race. Hence, your analogy is rather flawed from that standpoint.
Then we simply go into arguing as to just how important we regard destroying a ball of undifferentiated cells, or in this case, something that may not even have gotton that far. Probably it should go to whoever uses it inevitably to make up their own damn mind as to if they want to rather than anyone else. Does this suddenly mean that everyone will get the idea they cannot get pregnant, then start to have heaps of promiscuous sex and abort tons of babies? Probably not in the end, because that is technically alrealy happening and has been for quite some time now. With the human population as it is, sexual controls can probably be a good thing, especially as society gets more liberal in attitude to things like sex anyway. Having children that will be born into the worst possible conditions for life (I have a certain friend who has one such kid, never sees it anymore too) is probably not going to help society, or anyone, that much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, I see Aegeri, I suppose the human race is better off with less people, perhaps you would have liked to been aborted as not to plague this beautiful earth of ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans only have babies when they are fertilized, and, they are sentient, have forgotten their basic insticts of surrive which tell them not to kill their children.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, I see Aegeri, I suppose the human race is better off with less people, perhaps you would have liked to been aborted as not to plague this beautiful earth of ours?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring.
<!--QuoteBegin--ElectricSheep+Dec 21 2003, 02:07 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Dec 21 2003, 02:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--CommunistWithAGun+Dec 20 2003, 06:01 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CommunistWithAGun @ Dec 20 2003, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Align+Dec 20 2003, 05:56 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Align @ Dec 20 2003, 05:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's a bunch of cells. Like a plant. Or a muscle. EDIT: If "killing" such a clump of cells is illegal, then we shouldn't use penicillin or any other medicin, because OMG teh bacteria are alife too! When it has developed a brain though, then I can see why you would argue against it. However, the MAPill can't be used(successfully) at that stage anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Will that bacteria develop into a human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually if human DNA is injected into a bacterial cell that has had its DNA removed when we have the technology to allow it to grow, then yes it can grow into a human. Isn't genetics amazing. Unfortuneatly I find the people most opposd to abortion have no idea what they are talking about. They know nothing of gametes, zygotes, meiosis, mitosis, DNA, chromosomes, cells, genes, or how stem cells really work or even the state of the embryo at different stages of pregnancy. Yet they still continue to argue against those who have much more experience in those field than they do. And the MAP as I see it will mostly be used by people whose condoms break or get drunk at a party. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> What does that have to do with two people having sex? I don't care what you can do with the cells. Leave them alone and they ARE HUMAN. Dunno, using a pill to justify the lack of morals in society makes me sicker than 10-12 year olds having sex.
Let me just say that a zygote is NOT human. Humans have hundred of different types of cells and trillions of each. An embryo within the first few weeks has not even BEGUN to differentiate cells, let alone develop a brain complex enough to decipher sensations and feel emotions. Experience defines who we are and who we will become, a mass of cells do not have experiences. In the case of the "Morning After" Pill this mass isn't even very large. And by not very large I mean it is microscopic.
<!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Dec 21 2003, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Dec 21 2003, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, I see Aegeri, I suppose the human race is better off with less people, perhaps you would have liked to been aborted as not to plague this beautiful earth of ours?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like someone couldn't answer a rhetorical question...!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me just say that a zygote is NOT human. Humans have hundred of different types of cells and trillions of each. An embryo within the first few weeks has not even BEGUN to differentiate cells, let alone develop a brain complex enough to decipher sensations and feel emotions. Experience defines who we are and who we will become, a mass of cells do not have experiences. In the case of the "Morning After" Pill this mass isn't even very large. And by not very large I mean it is microscopic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 05:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 05:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Aegeri+Dec 21 2003, 07:40 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Aegeri @ Dec 21 2003, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, I see Aegeri, I suppose the human race is better off with less people, perhaps you would have liked to been aborted as not to plague this beautiful earth of ours?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Looks like someone couldn't answer a rhetorical question...!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me just say that a zygote is NOT human. Humans have hundred of different types of cells and trillions of each. An embryo within the first few weeks has not even BEGUN to differentiate cells, let alone develop a brain complex enough to decipher sensations and feel emotions. Experience defines who we are and who we will become, a mass of cells do not have experiences. In the case of the "Morning After" Pill this mass isn't even very large. And by not very large I mean it is microscopic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have a 100% chance of dieing if I never left this spot. No food here, or water. Bringing foolish statistics in doesn't help an argument. I hate people who don't see my argument is that something that is at the moment is not what it will be... yet. I am not dead and yet I have a 100% chance of dieing eventually (see how little statistics help) however, I am not considered dead because I'm not... yet. I have made this argument before and I will make it again, whatever something will/can/wants to become it is not till it is. Me and you and everyone else will inevitably die. There is no chance it will change without massive intervention, similar to how a zygote will USUALLY (many many genetic disorders stop critical parts such as the brain from even forming) become a human (guess what! stem cells from an embryo/zygote are perfect for cloning and in the future even other animals could be made from them) unless there is massive intervention. However, sometimes intervention is made because it is for the best interest for the decider and her contacts. Sometimes humans are saved from death when their time would normally be up because it is in the best interest of the person. And unlike a zygote the person in this case has a choice because ATM he/she IS a human. Live in the present, not the future.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Looks like someone couldn't answer a rhetorical question...!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Care to explain how an undifferentiated ball of cells understands what is happening to it? More importantly, has the mechanisms for memory and similar things that allow it to FEEL and understand it?
I answered your question, despite it's inherent stupidity.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone.
I used to be pro choice, but suprisingly, and not because I identify myself as a conservartive in some manners, heck I'm a libetarian which is an ideal that supports pro choice, I changed.
If my birth mom (I'm adopted) wasn't such a heroin junkie and could have actually saved the money up for something other than dope, I'm almost positive she would have had an abortion. That makes me feel sorry for every life (yes, you can argue its not a life) that gets taken before they have a chance to live.
I actually find it funny liberals support pro choice, I understand the green party's whole idea of less people=better evnviorment, but while not trying to start an argument, I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance.
Abortion, I believe, should be fine only in cases of rape, or incest. I believe in Youthanasia (sp) but not even giving the kid a chance to live, even if you think putting him up for adoption won't make his life better, just isn't fair, I think. This isn't an argument I get heated about, its rather one I get sad about.
If morning after pills stop life from being created, then I believe its fine, but if the life is so much as created, or starting to create, then no.
On a side note, the one thing that gets me about the morning after pill, is if it gives girls the sense that they don't have to worry about getting pregnent, then they don't have to worry about sex. Many girls I've known didn't realize the effect having sex would have on them emotionally, especially when the same guy tried dumping them two weeks later..... It just seems like it would leave them vulenerable. Other then that, I don't know.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Dec 23 2003, 05:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Dec 23 2003, 05:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I actually find it funny liberals support pro choice, I understand the green party's whole idea of less people=better evnviorment, but while not trying to start an argument, I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, I think liberals get demonized for supporting pro-choice, as if we're all sitting there hungrily with coat hangers, eager to perform violence on a defenseless embryo/fetus/what have you.
I support pro-chocie, primarily because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government having ultimate control over a woman's body. Yes, I realize that it's an incredibly complex issue, and very often pregnancy is a bed that irresponsible people make for themselves, and it does involve an innocent life. It's not as if I relish abortion-- I think it is truly a sad situation, and I'd certainly like to see more effective birth control methods (or more effective methods for convincing people to use them ).
That's why I support things like this pill-- I tend to look at it pragmatically-- human nature is human nature, and I'm sorry, but we're hard wired to enjoy sex. We can be as idealistic as we want, but it's not going to change certain facts about our anatomy. Myself, though I am pro-choice, I would not complain in the least to see this shift the percentage of abortions down without affecting the percentage of live births.
Again, not everyone who is pro-choice is cheering from the rooftops every time there is an abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to politicize this, but I think this is about as cynical as claiming that conservatives cease to care about the welfare of the child once it's born. Again, it's a much more complex issue that this.
I think ppl have gotten a bit out of focus with this topic.. We can speculate does a fetus have a soul or how sentient it is till next christmas and beyond but IMHO we are forgetting something more important - why do people even get pregnant if they dont want to have a child?
My punchline is that people are not very rational, if we were nothing but logically functioning bio-machines, we wouldnt play NS or have passionate whim-of-the-moment affairs or even fall in love. I aint no chick-hunter but the few times a woman has made me go totally nuts and i havent had one rational/logical thought in my head. We do stupid things, dont we? "Stupid is stupid does", eh?
I think the least worry is sending a "bad message" to teens, the worst thing is having child-mothers and lots of late abortions. And even though we do stupid things, we also feel regret. I dont believe that anybodys going to feel just fine (morally or physically) after having unprotected sex or having a condom break during sex and taking the PAM the next morning. To summarize my view - women should have the right to choose and the choises should not be limited because we fear we are making unprotected sex "kosher". I think it would more pro-life to restrict firearms or try harder to stop the global drug trade than not to deal PAMs out to teenagers.
In todays society (in the western world) having kids is something you dont do very lightly. Where I live (Finland), living is quite expensive and having kids is even more expensive, so naturally people consider a lot before having kids. Also having a child is not like taking a pet - its something you have to commit yourself and it will take 1/3 or 1/4 of your total lifespan to get those buggers to leave <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> . People do grow to challenges but I think that kids age of 13-18 should worry more about growing up themselves than raising children.
Thats my opinion. But I wish everybody a good and joyful christmas. Take care of those you love and lets kick **** in NS 3.0 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult...
DO please try to keep this on topic <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
The fact is, that occaisionally accidents happen, lay the blame on societal programming, lack of education, whatever. I had thought that humanity, and Western civilisation had grown to the point where it had been able to separate the act of sex from that of procreation. No matter how many precautions you take, children can still appear. The condom can split, the pill can be forgotten to be taken etc. At that point, the only thing that can be done contraceptively is to take the morning after pill.
I've seen people on the morning after. Imagine the worst hangover you've ever had, coupled with someone swilling out your insides with bleach. Its fairly close.
If a woman wants to put herself through that, rather than buying condoms, then let her, what does it harm you? At least she's doing that rather than aborting or spawning any welfare cases.
If you are unable to separate the idea of sex from that of procreation, maybe this isn't the thread for you.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
<!--QuoteBegin--Xzilen+Dec 23 2003, 12:34 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Xzilen @ Dec 23 2003, 12:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I used to be pro choice, but suprisingly, and not because I identify myself as a conservartive in some manners, heck I'm a libetarian which is an ideal that supports pro choice, I changed.
If my birth mom (I'm adopted) wasn't such a heroin junkie and could have actually saved the money up for something other than dope, I'm almost positive she would have had an abortion. That makes me feel sorry for every life (yes, you can argue its not a life) that gets taken before they have a chance to live.
I actually find it funny liberals support pro choice, I understand the green party's whole idea of less people=better evnviorment, but while not trying to start an argument, I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance.
Abortion, I believe, should be fine only in cases of rape, or incest. I believe in Youthanasia (sp) but not even giving the kid a chance to live, even if you think putting him up for adoption won't make his life better, just isn't fair, I think. This isn't an argument I get heated about, its rather one I get sad about.
If morning after pills stop life from being created, then I believe its fine, but if the life is so much as created, or starting to create, then no.
On a side note, the one thing that gets me about the morning after pill, is if it gives girls the sense that they don't have to worry about getting pregnent, then they don't have to worry about sex. Many girls I've known didn't realize the effect having sex would have on them emotionally, especially when the same guy tried dumping them two weeks later..... It just seems like it would leave them vulenerable. Other then that, I don't know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Do you remeber anything from when you were two to three days concieved? My argument is that even though you are a person and alive now you were not before so you couldn't care because you never existed. Sorry that sentence sounds wierd.
<!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 23 2003, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 23 2003, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
For shame! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There is zero percent chance my or your sperm will become human beings left alone.
On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. A miscarrage really does not count because a miscarrage happens when the egg wasn't fertilized correctly, so in that case it was never going to be a human being. The miscarrage only happens to remove the dead zygote so another egg can come down into the ovary and thus life continues.
I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, <b>stop trying to dodge the question.</b>.
Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure <u>bulls***</u> IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 23 2003, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 23 2003, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 23 2003, 10:54 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 23 2003, 10:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 23 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--BathroomMonkey+Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Dec 22 2003, 11:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 22 2003, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
For shame! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is zero percent chance my or your sperm will become human beings left alone.
On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. A miscarrage really does not count because a miscarrage happens when the egg wasn't fertilized correctly, so in that case it was never going to be a human being. The miscarrage only happens to remove the dead zygote so another egg can come down into the ovary and thus life continues.
I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, <b>stop trying to dodge the question.</b>.
Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure <u>bulls***</u> IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ever heard of parthenogenesis or androgenesis? I thought not. Basically they are experimental cloning processes that make an embryo out of either two sperm or one egg. My logic in saying zygotes arn't human is because they are a clump of cells. Correction a zygote is ONE cell. Hey and guess what? A healthy embryo grown from skin cells or eggs are sperm also (by your logic) a 100% chance of becoming a human. And because you are so convinced by potential outcomes than every egg or two sperm are potential people, heck every cell is a potential person (or part of one). Oh and IMO is stupid, of course its your opinion, you're the one one writing it. But now I'm just descending into petty squabbling (whenever it becomes spelling, grammer, structure, or use of common sayings its petty). Anyway, did you even read my previous post on the other page? Statistics don't help your arguments, nor do absolutes. BTW you have a 100% chance of dieing so I guess you should already consider yourself dead. [EDIT] It just occured a few minutes after thinking of this post. We are completely off-topic right now talking about the wheter or not zygote/fetus/embryo is human. Anyway I support the MAp being made over the counter because the more effective contraceptives available to people = the better. [/EDIT]
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. A miscarriage really does not count because a miscarriage happens when the egg wasn't fertilized correctly, so in that case it was never going to be a human being. The miscarriage only happens to remove the dead zygote so another egg can come down into the ovary and thus life continues. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Incorrect. A Miscarriage can happen for a number of reasons, and many of these factor in the mother's health, habits, the biology of her uterus and cervix, her immune system, as well as the presence of other fetal tissue. A properly fertilized egg <i>can</i> be miscarried.
Additionally, the body doesn't always expel the biological elements of the pregnancy. Which sort of contradicts your characterization of a miscarriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, stop trying to dodge the question.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not. You're trying to hedge your bets here. The kicker is that you're working backwards from a human and artifically subtracting all situations that could contradict your thesis here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure bulls*** IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a <i>potential</i> human. You can't absolutely guarantee that it will become a human being. There is a <b>greater</b> than 15% chance that it will fail (this is because I think it's safe to assume that a certain percentage of abortions [22% of all pregnancies] would have inevitably resulting in a miscarriage). Additionally, what about mothers that die during pregnancy?
Even without taking that into consideration, a theory that a zygote, if 'left on its own' has a 100% guarantee of become a human is flawed. The zygote isn't exactly self sufficient.
But I agree with you-- a healthy fertilized zygote, implanted in a nurturing environment, by a mother who is aware of her condition and going out of her way to support it, whose environmental biology is compatible with the child, will become a human being, (barring any sort of disaster).
Of course, that's based on a lot of variables and can only be called in hindsight. As I said, <i>potentially</i> human.
why are we talking about miscarriages anyway? If someone told you that inside an opaque box was either A) A *edit* living *edit* human B) A pitcher of water and told you that you could either choose to flood the box with poison gas, or open the box instead, which would you choose? How does this make it any more right to flood the box with poison gas because "there's a chance that what's inside the box is just a pitcher of water"?
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Dec 24 2003, 02:38 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Dec 24 2003, 02:38 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> why are we talking about miscarriages anyway? If someone told you that inside an opaque box was either A) A *edit* living *edit* human B) A pitcher of water and told you that you could either choose to flood the box with poison gas, or open the box instead, which would you choose? How does this make it any more right to flood the box with poison gas because "there's a chance that what's inside the box is just a pitcher of water"?
Just thought I'd point that out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Schrodinger's pitcher?
It's relevant because the 'humanity' of a zygote came into question regarding the use of this pill.
And your analogy really robbed the situation of all context. I mean, I can come back and say-- well, for the sake of argument, let's say that this living, feeling human being is Hitler. Now do you poison it?
Now, I meant this to be absurd and irritating. I mean, you might as well have put kittens, a puppy, and sunshine in the box with the 'living' person. We're <i>arguing</i> about the certainty of 'life' in this situation, and you've gone ahead and steamrolled that into the affirmative.
So, let's just deconstruct the analogy and strip it of distracting and emotional euphamisms. Replace "opaque box" with "Woman's stomach", "Living human" with "zygote", and "pitcher" with "dead mass of cells". And we're right back where we started!
(Though, it is interesting that you chose to unequivocally humanize the zygote and dehumanize the woman bearing it). *edit: Since I see Whee replying right now, I'll go ahead and say that this is a cheap shot and probably unnecessary <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Dec 23 2003, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Dec 23 2003, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually that is pretty incorrect. Many eggs, even fertilised ones are in fact aborted NATURALLY for whatever reason. Some are simply reabsorbed, they have a genetic fault that instantly dooms them to destruction, the featus is aborted mid term for whatever reason (miscarriage), the sperm fail to fuse properly with the egg and many other things can happen. It is a LOT less than this idealised 100% you like to blabber about. It is probably even less today because of all of the amazingly dangerous carcinogens we have begun to impose on ourselves.
If you want to argue the point, I suggest you go to the many support groups who deal with people with infertility problems. One particular one that I study is a condition where the mothers immune cells destroy sperm, rendering her technically infertile. Once you really dig into how people are born, the biochemistry of it etc you'll realise just how amazingly dangerous and complex a process it actually is.
Hm, I think you missed the point of my analogy. And it wouldn't have been an analogy if I had used "woman's womb (not stomach, that'd be bad)", zygote, and dead mass of cells.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I meant this to be absurd and irritating. I mean, you might as well have put kittens, a puppy, and sunshine in the box with the 'living' person. We're arguing about the certainty of 'life' in this situation, and you've gone ahead and steamrolled that into the affirmative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Life is never certain. You or I could die while reading this. I don't see how that has any relevance. If a fetus miscarries, it was still at one point living, with the potential to develop a mind of its own.
My point was, why does it matter that there might be a chance that the zygote might become a miscarriage? The reason we don't consider skin cells to be "a human life" is because babies aren't regularly known to just start growing off your epidermis (which is dead cells anyway). Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly do, and if you insist that the possibility that it won't develop properly somehow makes a zygote not "human" then by your same logic I could claim that people with severe mental disabilities or severe birth defects "aren't human."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And your analogy really robbed the situation of all context. I mean, I can come back and say-- well, for the sake of argument, let's say that this living, feeling human being is Hitler. Now do you poison it? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, your child could become a Hitler. Or he could become someone who genetically engineers the answer to AIDs or cancer. What's your point? Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live. People should know better and take responsibility for their actions. Now, if there was a rape or something, I would acknowledge that the woman should be able to decide. But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Hm, I think you missed the point of my analogy. And it wouldn't have been an analogy if I had used "woman's womb (not stomach, that'd be bad)", zygote, and dead mass of cells.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ok, so I got cartoonish and said 'stomach'. Sue me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But my point was that you stacked your analogy, and it wasn't entirely honest to the situation. There aren't simply two possibilities here (human vs. non-human)-- let's remember, you take this pill before you're even aware that you're pregnant. So, it's a zygote, which may or may not develop into a human, and a non-pregnancy-- pitcher-- or what have you. And, again, you dehumanized the vessel. A slight gesture, but not insignificant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason we don't consider skin cells to be "a human life" is because babies aren't regularly known to just start growing off your epidermis (which is dead cells anyway). Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly does<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though, if we extrapolate off of current technology, then that might very well become possible. <i>Then</i> we'll have a real can of worms on our hands.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly does, and if you insist that the possibility that it won't develop properly somehow makes a zygote not "human" then by your same logic I could claim that people with severe mental disabilities or severe birth defects "aren't human." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really-- I'm drawing the line at 'living' (in whatever capacity) and 'non-living'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, your child could become a Hitler. Or he could become someone who genetically engineers the answer to AIDs or cancer. What's your point? Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live. People should know better and take responsibility for their actions. Now, if there was a rape or something, I would acknowledge that the woman should be able to decide. But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said, I meant to draw an absurd line there, and show how analogies and 'what-if's' can branch us into another area code . My point is simply that <i>aside</i> from the fact that we don't even know if a pregnancy has occurred, there are other factors to consider before we consider the use of this immediate, over-the-counter medication to be some sort of murder.
But on this tangent, we're essentially locked into an argument of semantics, quibbles, and opinions. And yet again, I've spun so far on a tangent that I have difficulty seeing the original point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My point was, why does it matter that there might be a chance that the zygote might become a miscarriage? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it is to somehow try and put a natural swing or emphasis on abortion. Personally I think that is being rather silly all things considered, because while we can compare an abortion rate naturally (for whatever reason) to the artificial abortion rate to determine if they would of lived, a good percentage of those children would of lived past the rather dangerous first stages to probably develop into full human beings. It isn't as if other animals aren't actually capable of forcing a foetus to abort (IE Zebras), but it isn't exactly something that humans have evolved to do naturally like Zebras have.
I think it's some sort of "Well it had a good chance not to develop anyway" sort of deal. As I said in my above post, that is true, far less fertlised eggs go the whole way than do, but that is why we produce so many over such a long time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not, if we're going to use absurd arguments why not add further absurd premises? Everyone starts from somewhere, even someone as intently murderous as Hitler was once a ball of dividing cells that would one day go on to kill 6,000,000 fully developed bags of cells.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why not? If we're going to make it so that we can get other forms of contraception over the counter why not this one? Most people won't even terminate a zygote every time they use it as human bodies are more fickle than people realise. It is better to have such a precaution available to those who want it than not to.
Well, let's list the basic facts about making the drug over-the-counter, without dealing with the ethics of using it first.
Pros: 1) Probably would protect a person's privacy. 2) Can be used immediately without having a doctor prescribe it (which I imagine could raise its effectiveness)
Cons: 1) Helps to legitimize sexual irresponsibility
Feel free to add, I can't remember if people have actually said things other than this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why not? If we're going to make it so that we can get other forms of contraception over the counter why not this one? Most people won't even terminate a zygote every time they use it as human bodies are more fickle than people realise. It is better to have such a precaution available to those who want it than not to. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't contraception, as pointed out earlier, it's abortion. I mean, unless you define contraception to be something other than <!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->"con·tra·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-spshn) n. Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures. "<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
Comments
And what becomes of the child? How many young mothers forced to raise accidental children actually get the proper help, and give the proper care to raise a healthy child? I'd say most...but never the less there is a certian percentage of mothers that will never provide for that child properly...never show it love, spend thier life making the child pay for her regrets. For every few dozen children that with a decent family life there at least one who knows nothing but suffering. There is a difference between being alive and "life" and I feel its not right to bring a child into this world if it can not enjoy some small measure of "life".
For me personally, if I would have gotten my gf pregnant a few years ago...it wouldnt have been by a lack of responsable sex...it would have been some unforseen accident. In any case, neither of us were ready to raise a child, and seeing as we ended up hating each other, the job I had then, trying to go to school and so on...that child wouldve put all that on hold, and changed our lives drastically, not to mention that the child would never see the quality of life I wand to provide for my children one day. I wouldve sucked it up and dedicated my life to that child regardless...but so many parents dont. They regret thier children, thier selfish with thier time and money, and even physically abusive, many children are going to spend thier entire live wishing theyde never been born anyway...why should my opinion of a zygote mean that child is forced into such an existense? God knows my opinion is not going to show that child love.
How sickening. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. Also many bird species (I think eagles included) young push their aiblings out of the nest to have them die thus allowing all the food to go to them and better their survival chances. Survival of the fittest.
Like a plant. Or a muscle.
EDIT: If "killing" such a clump of cells is illegal, then we shouldn't use penicillin or any other medicin, because OMG teh bacteria are alife too!
When it has developed a brain though, then I can see why you would argue against it. However, the MAPill can't be used(successfully) at that stage anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will that bacteria develop into a human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually if human DNA is injected into a bacterial cell that has had its DNA removed when we have the technology to allow it to grow, then yes it can grow into a human. Isn't genetics amazing. Unfortuneatly I find the people most opposd to abortion have no idea what they are talking about. They know nothing of gametes, zygotes, meiosis, mitosis, DNA, chromosomes, cells, genes, or how stem cells really work or even the state of the embryo at different stages of pregnancy. Yet they still continue to argue against those who have much more experience in those field than they do. And the MAP as I see it will mostly be used by people whose condoms break or get drunk at a party.
How sickening. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. Also many bird species (I think eagles included) young push their aiblings out of the nest to have them die thus allowing all the food to go to them and better their survival chances. Survival of the fittest. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah I see.
It's time to cull the herd of the human race.
The way people responded to my comment truely shows how souless we've become:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Eagles are an endangered species. If humans were the same, the abortion rate would be rather low, don't you think? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Nice logic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Eagles are an endangered species that are basically on the verge of extinction (or were). Quite frankly, that was our fault (Go DDT!) and we managed to fix that. Naturally, destroying an eagles egg would be highly detrimental to the population so every single one is essential to the survival of the species.
On the other hand, things like the pill just ensure that one less human is born out of millions that are every single day. Really, the comparison is rather void, there are many human beings in the world and stopping one from potentially being born isn't going to devastate the entire human race. Hence, your analogy is rather flawed from that standpoint.
Then we simply go into arguing as to just how important we regard destroying a ball of undifferentiated cells, or in this case, something that may not even have gotton that far. Probably it should go to whoever uses it inevitably to make up their own damn mind as to if they want to rather than anyone else. Does this suddenly mean that everyone will get the idea they cannot get pregnant, then start to have heaps of promiscuous sex and abort tons of babies? Probably not in the end, because that is technically alrealy happening and has been for quite some time now. With the human population as it is, sexual controls can probably be a good thing, especially as society gets more liberal in attitude to things like sex anyway. Having children that will be born into the worst possible conditions for life (I have a certain friend who has one such kid, never sees it anymore too) is probably not going to help society, or anyone, that much. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah, I see Aegeri, I suppose the human race is better off with less people, perhaps you would have liked to been aborted as not to plague this beautiful earth of ours?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Eagles only lay eggs when they are fertilized and, as they are not sentient, act only on the basic instinct which tell them to protect their eggs. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Humans only have babies when they are fertilized, and, they are sentient, have forgotten their basic insticts of surrive which tell them not to kill their children.
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring.
Like a plant. Or a muscle.
EDIT: If "killing" such a clump of cells is illegal, then we shouldn't use penicillin or any other medicin, because OMG teh bacteria are alife too!
When it has developed a brain though, then I can see why you would argue against it. However, the MAPill can't be used(successfully) at that stage anyway. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Will that bacteria develop into a human? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually if human DNA is injected into a bacterial cell that has had its DNA removed when we have the technology to allow it to grow, then yes it can grow into a human. Isn't genetics amazing. Unfortuneatly I find the people most opposd to abortion have no idea what they are talking about. They know nothing of gametes, zygotes, meiosis, mitosis, DNA, chromosomes, cells, genes, or how stem cells really work or even the state of the embryo at different stages of pregnancy. Yet they still continue to argue against those who have much more experience in those field than they do. And the MAP as I see it will mostly be used by people whose condoms break or get drunk at a party. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What does that have to do with two people having sex? I don't care what you can do with the cells. Leave them alone and they ARE HUMAN. Dunno, using a pill to justify the lack of morals in society makes me sicker than 10-12 year olds having sex.
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like someone couldn't answer a rhetorical question...!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me just say that a zygote is NOT human. Humans have hundred of different types of cells and trillions of each. An embryo within the first few weeks has not even BEGUN to differentiate cells, let alone develop a brain complex enough to decipher sensations and feel emotions. Experience defines who we are and who we will become, a mass of cells do not have experiences. In the case of the "Morning After" Pill this mass isn't even very large. And by not very large I mean it is microscopic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh.
Despite how stupid your statement is, I wouldn't of cared, because an undifferentiated ball of cells is INCAPABLE of caring. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Looks like someone couldn't answer a rhetorical question...!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let me just say that a zygote is NOT human. Humans have hundred of different types of cells and trillions of each. An embryo within the first few weeks has not even BEGUN to differentiate cells, let alone develop a brain complex enough to decipher sensations and feel emotions. Experience defines who we are and who we will become, a mass of cells do not have experiences. In the case of the "Morning After" Pill this mass isn't even very large. And by not very large I mean it is microscopic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A zygote in a human being has 100% chance of becoming human if left alone, therefore it's human. The zygote will not develop into a frog, fish, bear, coyote... you get my point. Saying it's not human is ludicris... what the hell is it then? "A clump of cells?" Don't make me laugh. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have a 100% chance of dieing if I never left this spot. No food here, or water. Bringing foolish statistics in doesn't help an argument. I hate people who don't see my argument is that something that is at the moment is not what it will be... yet. I am not dead and yet I have a 100% chance of dieing eventually (see how little statistics help) however, I am not considered dead because I'm not... yet. I have made this argument before and I will make it again, whatever something will/can/wants to become it is not till it is. Me and you and everyone else will inevitably die. There is no chance it will change without massive intervention, similar to how a zygote will USUALLY (many many genetic disorders stop critical parts such as the brain from even forming) become a human (guess what! stem cells from an embryo/zygote are perfect for cloning and in the future even other animals could be made from them) unless there is massive intervention. However, sometimes intervention is made because it is for the best interest for the decider and her contacts. Sometimes humans are saved from death when their time would normally be up because it is in the best interest of the person. And unlike a zygote the person in this case has a choice because ATM he/she IS a human. Live in the present, not the future.
Care to explain how an undifferentiated ball of cells understands what is happening to it? More importantly, has the mechanisms for memory and similar things that allow it to FEEL and understand it?
I answered your question, despite it's inherent stupidity.
A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone.
If my birth mom (I'm adopted) wasn't such a heroin junkie and could have actually saved the money up for something other than dope, I'm almost positive she would have had an abortion. That makes me feel sorry for every life (yes, you can argue its not a life) that gets taken before they have a chance to live.
I actually find it funny liberals support pro choice, I understand the green party's whole idea of less people=better evnviorment, but while not trying to start an argument, I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance.
Abortion, I believe, should be fine only in cases of rape, or incest. I believe in Youthanasia (sp) but not even giving the kid a chance to live, even if you think putting him up for adoption won't make his life better, just isn't fair, I think. This isn't an argument I get heated about, its rather one I get sad about.
If morning after pills stop life from being created, then I believe its fine, but if the life is so much as created, or starting to create, then no.
On a side note, the one thing that gets me about the morning after pill, is if it gives girls the sense that they don't have to worry about getting pregnent, then they don't have to worry about sex. Many girls I've known didn't realize the effect having sex would have on them emotionally, especially when the same guy tried dumping them two weeks later..... It just seems like it would leave them vulenerable. Other then that, I don't know.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I think liberals get demonized for supporting pro-choice, as if we're all sitting there hungrily with coat hangers, eager to perform violence on a defenseless embryo/fetus/what have you.
I support pro-chocie, primarily because I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the government having ultimate control over a woman's body. Yes, I realize that it's an incredibly complex issue, and very often pregnancy is a bed that irresponsible people make for themselves, and it does involve an innocent life. It's not as if I relish abortion-- I think it is truly a sad situation, and I'd certainly like to see more effective birth control methods (or more effective methods for convincing people to use them ).
That's why I support things like this pill-- I tend to look at it pragmatically-- human nature is human nature, and I'm sorry, but we're hard wired to enjoy sex. We can be as idealistic as we want, but it's not going to change certain facts about our anatomy. Myself, though I am pro-choice, I would not complain in the least to see this shift the percentage of abortions down without affecting the percentage of live births.
Again, not everyone who is pro-choice is cheering from the rooftops every time there is an abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to politicize this, but I think this is about as cynical as claiming that conservatives cease to care about the welfare of the child once it's born. Again, it's a much more complex issue that this.
My punchline is that people are not very rational, if we were nothing but logically functioning bio-machines, we wouldnt play NS or have passionate whim-of-the-moment affairs or even fall in love. I aint no chick-hunter but the few times a woman has made me go totally nuts and i havent had one rational/logical thought in my head. We do stupid things, dont we? "Stupid is stupid does", eh?
I think the least worry is sending a "bad message" to teens, the worst thing is having child-mothers and lots of late abortions. And even though we do stupid things, we also feel regret. I dont believe that anybodys going to feel just fine (morally or physically) after having unprotected sex or having a condom break during sex and taking the PAM the next morning. To summarize my view - women should have the right to choose and the choises should not be limited because we fear we are making unprotected sex "kosher". I think it would more pro-life to restrict firearms or try harder to stop the global drug trade than not to deal PAMs out to teenagers.
In todays society (in the western world) having kids is something you dont do very lightly. Where I live (Finland), living is quite expensive and having kids is even more expensive, so naturally people consider a lot before having kids. Also having a child is not like taking a pet - its something you have to commit yourself and it will take 1/3 or 1/4 of your total lifespan to get those buggers to leave <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> . People do grow to challenges but I think that kids age of 13-18 should worry more about growing up themselves than raising children.
Thats my opinion. But I wish everybody a good and joyful christmas. Take care of those you love and lets kick **** in NS 3.0 <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult...
The fact is, that occaisionally accidents happen, lay the blame on societal programming, lack of education, whatever.
I had thought that humanity, and Western civilisation had grown to the point where it had been able to separate the act of sex from that of procreation.
No matter how many precautions you take, children can still appear. The condom can split, the pill can be forgotten to be taken etc. At that point, the only thing that can be done contraceptively is to take the morning after pill.
I've seen people on the morning after. Imagine the worst hangover you've ever had, coupled with someone swilling out your insides with bleach. Its fairly close.
If a woman wants to put herself through that, rather than buying condoms, then let her, what does it harm you? At least she's doing that rather than aborting or spawning any welfare cases.
If you are unable to separate the idea of sex from that of procreation, maybe this isn't the thread for you.
A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
For shame!
If my birth mom (I'm adopted) wasn't such a heroin junkie and could have actually saved the money up for something other than dope, I'm almost positive she would have had an abortion. That makes me feel sorry for every life (yes, you can argue its not a life) that gets taken before they have a chance to live.
I actually find it funny liberals support pro choice, I understand the green party's whole idea of less people=better evnviorment, but while not trying to start an argument, I wonder how some people can claim to be so sympathetic for the little guy, yet not look after the little guy who's never going to get his chance.
Abortion, I believe, should be fine only in cases of rape, or incest. I believe in Youthanasia (sp) but not even giving the kid a chance to live, even if you think putting him up for adoption won't make his life better, just isn't fair, I think. This isn't an argument I get heated about, its rather one I get sad about.
If morning after pills stop life from being created, then I believe its fine, but if the life is so much as created, or starting to create, then no.
On a side note, the one thing that gets me about the morning after pill, is if it gives girls the sense that they don't have to worry about getting pregnent, then they don't have to worry about sex. Many girls I've known didn't realize the effect having sex would have on them emotionally, especially when the same guy tried dumping them two weeks later..... It just seems like it would leave them vulenerable. Other then that, I don't know. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you remeber anything from when you were two to three days concieved? My argument is that even though you are a person and alive now you were not before so you couldn't care because you never existed. Sorry that sentence sounds wierd.
A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
For shame! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is zero percent chance my or your sperm will become human beings left alone.
On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. A miscarrage really does not count because a miscarrage happens when the egg wasn't fertilized correctly, so in that case it was never going to be a human being. The miscarrage only happens to remove the dead zygote so another egg can come down into the ovary and thus life continues.
I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, <b>stop trying to dodge the question.</b>.
Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure <u>bulls***</u> IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic.
A 100% chance? Then what, praytell, is a miscarriage?
Statistically speaking, in the United States, as many as 15% of pregnancies result in <i>unintentional</i> miscarriages-- which is pretty close to the 22% that are terminated by an abortion.
So in reality, it has an 85% chance of becoming a human if left alone. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah I see your true colors now, you do not consider zygotes to be human.
I said if you leave it alone, it will be a human being.
Even if it's a miscarrage, it is still human genes that are going to grow into an adult... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I hate to quibble, but a miscarriage is not going to turn into an adult anytime soon.
Well, why stop there? Forlorn, from your stance, I think it's safe to assume that you never masturbate, correct? After all, it's a waste of sperm that, had it fertilized an egg, would have had a 100% (I say 85%, of course) chance of producing a human. Each time you whack off, you're dooming the genetic material <i>meant</i> to produce a unique, potential human being to oblivion, all for a few selfish moments of pleasure.
For shame! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is zero percent chance my or your sperm will become human beings left alone.
On the other hand, there is 100% chance a fertilized egg will become a human being. A miscarrage really does not count because a miscarrage happens when the egg wasn't fertilized correctly, so in that case it was never going to be a human being. The miscarrage only happens to remove the dead zygote so another egg can come down into the ovary and thus life continues.
I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, <b>stop trying to dodge the question.</b>.
Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure <u>bulls***</u> IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ever heard of parthenogenesis or androgenesis? I thought not. Basically they are experimental cloning processes that make an embryo out of either two sperm or one egg. My logic in saying zygotes arn't human is because they are a clump of cells. Correction a zygote is ONE cell. Hey and guess what? A healthy embryo grown from skin cells or eggs are sperm also (by your logic) a 100% chance of becoming a human. And because you are so convinced by potential outcomes than every egg or two sperm are potential people, heck every cell is a potential person (or part of one). Oh and IMO is stupid, of course its your opinion, you're the one one writing it. But now I'm just descending into petty squabbling (whenever it becomes spelling, grammer, structure, or use of common sayings its petty). Anyway, did you even read my previous post on the other page? Statistics don't help your arguments, nor do absolutes. BTW you have a 100% chance of dieing so I guess you should already consider yourself dead. [EDIT] It just occured a few minutes after thinking of this post. We are completely off-topic right now talking about the wheter or not zygote/fetus/embryo is human. Anyway I support the MAp being made over the counter because the more effective contraceptives available to people = the better. [/EDIT]
Incorrect. A Miscarriage can happen for a number of reasons, and many of these factor in the mother's health, habits, the biology of her uterus and cervix, her immune system, as well as the presence of other fetal tissue. A properly fertilized egg <i>can</i> be miscarried.
Additionally, the body doesn't always expel the biological elements of the pregnancy. Which sort of contradicts your characterization of a miscarriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am talking about a HEALTHY, FERTIZED EGG, WHICH IS GROWING PROPERLY. It WILL become a human, stop trying to dodge the question..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not. You're trying to hedge your bets here. The kicker is that you're working backwards from a human and artifically subtracting all situations that could contradict your thesis here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Stop saying zygotes aren't human. That's pure bulls*** IMO, lets hear you try and justify otherwise. I want to see your logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a <i>potential</i> human. You can't absolutely guarantee that it will become a human being. There is a <b>greater</b> than 15% chance that it will fail (this is because I think it's safe to assume that a certain percentage of abortions [22% of all pregnancies] would have inevitably resulting in a miscarriage). Additionally, what about mothers that die during pregnancy?
Even without taking that into consideration, a theory that a zygote, if 'left on its own' has a 100% guarantee of become a human is flawed. The zygote isn't exactly self sufficient.
But I agree with you-- a healthy fertilized zygote, implanted in a nurturing environment, by a mother who is aware of her condition and going out of her way to support it, whose environmental biology is compatible with the child, will become a human being, (barring any sort of disaster).
Of course, that's based on a lot of variables and can only be called in hindsight. As I said, <i>potentially</i> human.
If someone told you that inside an opaque box was either
A) A *edit* living *edit* human
B) A pitcher of water
and told you that you could either choose to flood the box with poison gas, or open the box instead, which would you choose? How does this make it any more right to flood the box with poison gas because "there's a chance that what's inside the box is just a pitcher of water"?
Just thought I'd point that out.
If someone told you that inside an opaque box was either
A) A *edit* living *edit* human
B) A pitcher of water
and told you that you could either choose to flood the box with poison gas, or open the box instead, which would you choose? How does this make it any more right to flood the box with poison gas because "there's a chance that what's inside the box is just a pitcher of water"?
Just thought I'd point that out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Schrodinger's pitcher?
It's relevant because the 'humanity' of a zygote came into question regarding the use of this pill.
And your analogy really robbed the situation of all context. I mean, I can come back and say-- well, for the sake of argument, let's say that this living, feeling human being is Hitler. Now do you poison it?
Now, I meant this to be absurd and irritating. I mean, you might as well have put kittens, a puppy, and sunshine in the box with the 'living' person. We're <i>arguing</i> about the certainty of 'life' in this situation, and you've gone ahead and steamrolled that into the affirmative.
So, let's just deconstruct the analogy and strip it of distracting and emotional euphamisms. Replace "opaque box" with "Woman's stomach", "Living human" with "zygote", and "pitcher" with "dead mass of cells". And we're right back where we started!
(Though, it is interesting that you chose to unequivocally humanize the zygote and dehumanize the woman bearing it).
*edit: Since I see Whee replying right now, I'll go ahead and say that this is a cheap shot and probably unnecessary <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Actually that is pretty incorrect. Many eggs, even fertilised ones are in fact aborted NATURALLY for whatever reason. Some are simply reabsorbed, they have a genetic fault that instantly dooms them to destruction, the featus is aborted mid term for whatever reason (miscarriage), the sperm fail to fuse properly with the egg and many other things can happen. It is a LOT less than this idealised 100% you like to blabber about. It is probably even less today because of all of the amazingly dangerous carcinogens we have begun to impose on ourselves.
If you want to argue the point, I suggest you go to the many support groups who deal with people with infertility problems. One particular one that I study is a condition where the mothers immune cells destroy sperm, rendering her technically infertile. Once you really dig into how people are born, the biochemistry of it etc you'll realise just how amazingly dangerous and complex a process it actually is.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I meant this to be absurd and irritating. I mean, you might as well have put kittens, a puppy, and sunshine in the box with the 'living' person. We're arguing about the certainty of 'life' in this situation, and you've gone ahead and steamrolled that into the affirmative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Life is never certain. You or I could die while reading this. I don't see how that has any relevance. If a fetus miscarries, it was still at one point living, with the potential to develop a mind of its own.
My point was, why does it matter that there might be a chance that the zygote might become a miscarriage? The reason we don't consider skin cells to be "a human life" is because babies aren't regularly known to just start growing off your epidermis (which is dead cells anyway). Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly do, and if you insist that the possibility that it won't develop properly somehow makes a zygote not "human" then by your same logic I could claim that people with severe mental disabilities or severe birth defects "aren't human."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And your analogy really robbed the situation of all context. I mean, I can come back and say-- well, for the sake of argument, let's say that this living, feeling human being is Hitler. Now do you poison it?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, your child could become a Hitler. Or he could become someone who genetically engineers the answer to AIDs or cancer. What's your point? Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live. People should know better and take responsibility for their actions. Now, if there was a rape or something, I would acknowledge that the woman should be able to decide. But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.
*edit* wording and grammar
Ok, so I got cartoonish and said 'stomach'. Sue me <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
But my point was that you stacked your analogy, and it wasn't entirely honest to the situation. There aren't simply two possibilities here (human vs. non-human)-- let's remember, you take this pill before you're even aware that you're pregnant. So, it's a zygote, which may or may not develop into a human, and a non-pregnancy-- pitcher-- or what have you. And, again, you dehumanized the vessel. A slight gesture, but not insignificant.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The reason we don't consider skin cells to be "a human life" is because babies aren't regularly known to just start growing off your epidermis (which is dead cells anyway). Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly does<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though, if we extrapolate off of current technology, then that might very well become possible. <i>Then</i> we'll have a real can of worms on our hands.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yet zygotes will most likely become a baby and regularly does, and if you insist that the possibility that it won't develop properly somehow makes a zygote not "human" then by your same logic I could claim that people with severe mental disabilities or severe birth defects "aren't human."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really-- I'm drawing the line at 'living' (in whatever capacity) and 'non-living'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes, your child could become a Hitler. Or he could become someone who genetically engineers the answer to AIDs or cancer. What's your point? Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live. People should know better and take responsibility for their actions. Now, if there was a rape or something, I would acknowledge that the woman should be able to decide. But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said, I meant to draw an absurd line there, and show how analogies and 'what-if's' can branch us into another area code . My point is simply that <i>aside</i> from the fact that we don't even know if a pregnancy has occurred, there are other factors to consider before we consider the use of this immediate, over-the-counter medication to be some sort of murder.
But on this tangent, we're essentially locked into an argument of semantics, quibbles, and opinions. And yet again, I've spun so far on a tangent that I have difficulty seeing the original point.
*edit: several minor points added
I believe it is to somehow try and put a natural swing or emphasis on abortion. Personally I think that is being rather silly all things considered, because while we can compare an abortion rate naturally (for whatever reason) to the artificial abortion rate to determine if they would of lived, a good percentage of those children would of lived past the rather dangerous first stages to probably develop into full human beings. It isn't as if other animals aren't actually capable of forcing a foetus to abort (IE Zebras), but it isn't exactly something that humans have evolved to do naturally like Zebras have.
I think it's some sort of "Well it had a good chance not to develop anyway" sort of deal. As I said in my above post, that is true, far less fertlised eggs go the whole way than do, but that is why we produce so many over such a long time.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Btw, let's not compare an inconvenient child to letting Hitler live.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why not, if we're going to use absurd arguments why not add further absurd premises? Everyone starts from somewhere, even someone as intently murderous as Hitler was once a ball of dividing cells that would one day go on to kill 6,000,000 fully developed bags of cells.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why not? If we're going to make it so that we can get other forms of contraception over the counter why not this one? Most people won't even terminate a zygote every time they use it as human bodies are more fickle than people realise. It is better to have such a precaution available to those who want it than not to.
Pros:
1) Probably would protect a person's privacy.
2) Can be used immediately without having a doctor prescribe it (which I imagine could raise its effectiveness)
Cons:
1) Helps to legitimize sexual irresponsibility
Feel free to add, I can't remember if people have actually said things other than this.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But this thread is about making the drug over-the-counter, which has nothing to do with that issue, so don't even think about bringing it up.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But why not? If we're going to make it so that we can get other forms of contraception over the counter why not this one? Most people won't even terminate a zygote every time they use it as human bodies are more fickle than people realise. It is better to have such a precaution available to those who want it than not to.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This isn't contraception, as pointed out earlier, it's abortion. I mean, unless you define contraception to be something other than
<!--c1--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->"con·tra·cep·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kntr-spshn)
n.
Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.
"<!--c2--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->