Say Anything: The Morning After Pill | Say Anything: North Dakota's Most Popular Political Blog
Dave
· 4 years ago
Opposition to contraception is probably one of the most foolish policies I have ever heard of in my life. I'm glad to hear that you are not opposed to such practices.
Pimme
· 4 years ago
Now, if we can just stop those "do-gooders" from going to Africa and telling them that condoms CAUSE AIDS...
Rob
· 4 years ago
I'm not sure anyone is telling Africans that condoms case AIDS. A problem, however, is with the UN refusing to talk about abstinence with them. They want to push the condom angle (which is ok) but really these people should be taught that abstinence is the only 100% effective way to avoid STD's.
Josh
· 4 years ago
For a fertilized egg to ultimately develop into an organism that can exist outside the womb (a baby) there are hundreds of vital milestones that must be achieved. Some of these include the cleavage process by which the fertilized egg divides (which actually begins prior to implantation in the uterus), implantation into the uterus as you stated, placentation in which blood vessels form a vital link between mother and baby, embryogenesis in which the embryo forms and leads to internal organ development. I could go on and on. My point is that all of these must be reached for a full term pregnancy.
Rob, you have arbitrarily picked one milestone amongst hundreds of milestones. No one milestone is any more important than any other because all are necessary for a successful pregnancy. Once all of these milestones are met the baby has reached the age of viability ( about 7 months I think but don't quote me) and can survive outside the womb.
According to your logic Rob, a person could make the statement that any type of abortion prior to the age of viability is justified because as long as at least one vital milestone remains, the baby would not have survived anyways.
Here's my challange to you. Given your logic for your stance, how would you argue against a person who contends that they are pro-life yet they would support an abortion 3 months post-fertilization because the baby cannot possibly survive without achieving future milestones and they state that the female body often discards fetuses via miscarriages much the same way that the female body discards fertilized eggs.
As I see it this hypothetical argument is exactly the same as yours, the hypothetical person has just chosen a different milestone than you. They chose a milestone at 3 months and you chose uteral implantation, both of which are essential for birth.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Rob, you have arbitrarily picked one milestone amongst hundreds of milestones.
No, I have picked the first milestone of hundreds. An egg that has not attached itself within the uterus has no potential for growing into a life. An egg that has attached itself does. That is the difference.
Once all of these milestones are met the baby has reached the age of viability ( about 7 months I think but don’t quote me) and can survive outside the womb.
I could care less about viability. I'm talking about potential. A fertilized egg attached and gestating in the uterus will grow into a live baby if left alone.
Here’s my challange to you. Given your logic for your stance, how would you argue against a person who contends that they are pro-life yet they would support an abortion 3 months post-fertilization because the baby cannot possibly survive without achieving future milestones and they state that the female body often discards fetuses via miscarriages much the same way that the female body discards fertilized eggs.
A fetus which has begun its gestation in the womb is a much different thing than a fertilized egg that fails to take hold in the womb, just as an unplanted seed is different than a seed that has taken root in the soil and begun to grow.
If a fetus has stopped its development it is, in essence, death and removing it from the mother's body would not be considered an abortion. I have no problem with that.
If a mother makes the arbitrary decision to stop an otherwise healthy fetus from developing because "sometimes a woman has miscarriages" that is wrong. Whether the fetus lives or dies is not her choice to make. If the fetus dies due to natural causes there is nothing we can do to help that.
But we can stop women from killing their unborn children on a whim.
Josh
· 4 years ago
In fact implantation is not the first milestone. A quick reference to a medical or science text shows that the hundreds of milestones are trimmed to usually 4-6 and implantation is usually the second milestone but never the first. The cleavage process is always first and begins after fertilization and ends with the first contact with the uterine wall.
The point that you are missing is that each step in the birth process is equally necessary and important. Implantation is no more or less vital than any other step before or after it. If any step is skipped, death occurs. If the cell fails to divide or divides improperly during the cleavage step prior to implantation, death occurs.
Of course a fertilized egg that fails to attach will die, but that is the case with each and every step in the process.
You make the statement "A fertilized egg attached and gestating in the uterus will grow into a live baby if left alone." but this also holds true for a fertilized egg prior to implantation. If left alone the fertilized egg will progress through all of the steps (one of which is implantation of course). I understand that failures occur with attachment, resulting in death, but these failures are possible at all stages both before and after implantation. That is why every single step is required and equally important.
Even if implantation was the first step, which it never is, it would still be equally as vital as every step after it.
I realize that we are basically on the same side of this issue and this is splitting hairs, but it is an important point to make that once fertilization occurs and it is undisturbed from an abortion by doctor, the fertilized egg will grow into a newborn baby, that's its only job. Unpreventable failure occurs at each and every stage along the way resulting in death. But implantation is merely one step along the way.
Rob
· 4 years ago
So what you're saying is that life begins at fertilization and that the morning after pill is equal to an abortion at any later stage?
Mark J
· 4 years ago
The interference with implantation by "the pill" or by Plan-B has never really been quantitatively established.
The argument Josh makes is a good one, but unless significant implantation interference can be shown, I don't think you can say the pill caused a termination of the fertilized egg. The fact that plan B doesn't work ~25% of the time suggests that the interference factor isn't that high.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about a pill that prevented implantation 100% of the time. As long as it didn't interfere with fertilized eggs already implanted, I don't think I've have a problem with it, but I'm still very open to arguments against that stance.
I happen to think that the morality of it all really depends on your intentions. I'd be more willing to damn someone who desires to end her pregnancy and does so through "natural" means (weight loss, poor nutrition, physical activity) than I'd be willing to damn someone who takes a pill trying to prevent pregnancy, and ends up preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Also, if you are against plan-B, you have to be against the birth control pill as well... they are the same thing. What are your thoughts on that, Josh?
Pimme
· 4 years ago
Here is a link to the story that said priests were telling Africans that condoms "caused" AIDS.
Yes I believe that life begins at fertilization. When an egg becomes fertilized by a sperm it will develop into a newborn baby. Obviously mother nature sometimes prevents this from happening by natural causes. However any artificial termination after fertilization I see as an abortion regardless if it takes place at the second stage of progression (ie. implantation) or the 42nd stage of progression.
I am somewhat perplexed by your stance Rob (and all others against abortion but okay with the morning after pill). In fact I can understand the stance of pro-choicers much more easily, although I obviously disagree with it vehemently. It is a medical fact that a fertilized egg will grow into a newborn baby barring natural, unpreventable termination or artificial termination. Do you dispute this? It is because of this fact that I feel any artificial termination is abortion period.
Let's say that hypothetically at 1 month a vital connection in the umbilical cord is made, that without this connection death occurs. According to your reasoning since there is no potential for life w/o this connection (just like there is no potential for life w/o implantation) any artifical means of termination by preventing the hypothetical connection from being made is alright just like artifically preventing implantation is alright.
By your reasoning you should be just as likely to support a "month-after pill" as you would a "morning-after pill."
Marty
· 4 years ago
[we] would do well to embrace this pill as a new way to prevent more abortions
Rob, you're still treating the symptoms, and letting the cause continue to run rampant. It's really simple, look at it this way for a moment:
What causes abortion? Ultimately, irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancies which cause abortion.
Will this pill result in more or less irresponsible sex, do you think?
(And no, contraception is not synonymous with responsibility, any more than auto-insurance is synonymous with safe driving.)
Mark J
· 4 years ago
So what is responsible sex, Marty? I tend to think it is taking precautions against unplanned pregnancy, and accepting responsibility for any pregnancy that might occur.
"Over-the-counter access may also increase risk-taking behavior, which could be an especially acute problem for teenagers in this country who have higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases than their counterparts in other developed nations,' said the Rev. Howard Lincoln, spokesman for the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Bernardino.
But a recent study of 2,117 young women in California concluded that easy access to emergency contraception did not cause teens to increase risky sexual behavior.
All Comments
Rob, you have arbitrarily picked one milestone amongst hundreds of milestones. No one milestone is any more important than any other because all are necessary for a successful pregnancy. Once all of these milestones are met the baby has reached the age of viability ( about 7 months I think but don't quote me) and can survive outside the womb.
According to your logic Rob, a person could make the statement that any type of abortion prior to the age of viability is justified because as long as at least one vital milestone remains, the baby would not have survived anyways.
Here's my challange to you. Given your logic for your stance, how would you argue against a person who contends that they are pro-life yet they would support an abortion 3 months post-fertilization because the baby cannot possibly survive without achieving future milestones and they state that the female body often discards fetuses via miscarriages much the same way that the female body discards fertilized eggs.
As I see it this hypothetical argument is exactly the same as yours, the hypothetical person has just chosen a different milestone than you. They chose a milestone at 3 months and you chose uteral implantation, both of which are essential for birth.
No, I have picked the first milestone of hundreds. An egg that has not attached itself within the uterus has no potential for growing into a life. An egg that has attached itself does. That is the difference.
Once all of these milestones are met the baby has reached the age of viability ( about 7 months I think but don’t quote me) and can survive outside the womb.
I could care less about viability. I'm talking about potential. A fertilized egg attached and gestating in the uterus will grow into a live baby if left alone.
Here’s my challange to you. Given your logic for your stance, how would you argue against a person who contends that they are pro-life yet they would support an abortion 3 months post-fertilization because the baby cannot possibly survive without achieving future milestones and they state that the female body often discards fetuses via miscarriages much the same way that the female body discards fertilized eggs.
A fetus which has begun its gestation in the womb is a much different thing than a fertilized egg that fails to take hold in the womb, just as an unplanted seed is different than a seed that has taken root in the soil and begun to grow.
If a fetus has stopped its development it is, in essence, death and removing it from the mother's body would not be considered an abortion. I have no problem with that.
If a mother makes the arbitrary decision to stop an otherwise healthy fetus from developing because "sometimes a woman has miscarriages" that is wrong. Whether the fetus lives or dies is not her choice to make. If the fetus dies due to natural causes there is nothing we can do to help that.
But we can stop women from killing their unborn children on a whim.
The point that you are missing is that each step in the birth process is equally necessary and important. Implantation is no more or less vital than any other step before or after it. If any step is skipped, death occurs. If the cell fails to divide or divides improperly during the cleavage step prior to implantation, death occurs.
Of course a fertilized egg that fails to attach will die, but that is the case with each and every step in the process.
You make the statement "A fertilized egg attached and gestating in the uterus will grow into a live baby if left alone." but this also holds true for a fertilized egg prior to implantation. If left alone the fertilized egg will progress through all of the steps (one of which is implantation of course). I understand that failures occur with attachment, resulting in death, but these failures are possible at all stages both before and after implantation. That is why every single step is required and equally important.
Even if implantation was the first step, which it never is, it would still be equally as vital as every step after it.
I realize that we are basically on the same side of this issue and this is splitting hairs, but it is an important point to make that once fertilization occurs and it is undisturbed from an abortion by doctor, the fertilized egg will grow into a newborn baby, that's its only job. Unpreventable failure occurs at each and every stage along the way resulting in death. But implantation is merely one step along the way.
The argument Josh makes is a good one, but unless significant implantation interference can be shown, I don't think you can say the pill caused a termination of the fertilized egg. The fact that plan B doesn't work ~25% of the time suggests that the interference factor isn't that high.
I'm not sure how I'd feel about a pill that prevented implantation 100% of the time. As long as it didn't interfere with fertilized eggs already implanted, I don't think I've have a problem with it, but I'm still very open to arguments against that stance.
I happen to think that the morality of it all really depends on your intentions. I'd be more willing to damn someone who desires to end her pregnancy and does so through "natural" means (weight loss, poor nutrition, physical activity) than I'd be willing to damn someone who takes a pill trying to prevent pregnancy, and ends up preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Also, if you are against plan-B, you have to be against the birth control pill as well... they are the same thing. What are your thoughts on that, Josh?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3176982.stm
I am somewhat perplexed by your stance Rob (and all others against abortion but okay with the morning after pill). In fact I can understand the stance of pro-choicers much more easily, although I obviously disagree with it vehemently. It is a medical fact that a fertilized egg will grow into a newborn baby barring natural, unpreventable termination or artificial termination. Do you dispute this? It is because of this fact that I feel any artificial termination is abortion period.
Let's say that hypothetically at 1 month a vital connection in the umbilical cord is made, that without this connection death occurs. According to your reasoning since there is no potential for life w/o this connection (just like there is no potential for life w/o implantation) any artifical means of termination by preventing the hypothetical connection from being made is alright just like artifically preventing implantation is alright.
By your reasoning you should be just as likely to support a "month-after pill" as you would a "morning-after pill."
Rob, you're still treating the symptoms, and letting the cause continue to run rampant. It's really simple, look at it this way for a moment:
What causes abortion? Ultimately, irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancies which cause abortion.
Will this pill result in more or less irresponsible sex, do you think?
(And no, contraception is not synonymous with responsibility, any more than auto-insurance is synonymous with safe driving.)