|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:02 am
lymelady I can't see how. By the time the morning after pill takes affect, that division has already taken place. I'm taking this information from wikipedia, in case you want to look it up for yourself. After the egg is fertalized, it becomes a diploid cell called a zygote. When the embryo reaches the uterus and implants in the endometrium, it begins to divide and form an embryo. At this point the female is said to be pregnant. As opposed to regular methods of contraception, ECs (like the morning after pill, which is an outdated term anyway and i should never have used it) are considered for use in occasional cases only, for example in the event of contraceptive failure. Since they act before implantation (IE, before the zygote attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins to divide), they are considered medically and legally to be forms of contraception. However, some who are anti-abortion (i'm pro life, not anti abortion, there is a difference which i will get to later if you are curious) define pregnancy as beginning with fertilisation, so they consider EC to be a form of abortion.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:02 am
If everyone's allowed to decide when personhood begins, I say we lift the age limit to 90!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:04 am
Beware the Jabberwock kp606 Beware the Jabberwock P.S.
I TURN 18 IN 12 DAYS. P.S.S. I KNOW!
AREN'T YOU PUMPED!?You're old.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:06 am
I.Am That's part of the point, Mindcandy. Who are we to decide when it becomes a person? Why is it not a person one day, and the next it is? Cell division make sense as a definite point; I disagree, but it makes sense. However, when they say, "It's not a person until after the first trimester! Or maybe the second trimester. Birth?" It's like, "Why is it a person then, but not the day before? Is there some magical event that occurs and suddenly it's a person?" Thus, the person fairy! I would say because, before that time, it's just a cell containg DNA, the information to create a human, not the human itself. Once human cells begin to form (Stem cells) then it's a growing human. I definatly respect your views, and i did share them for a while, but in this case i just have to say that i've done a lot of research, debate, and thinking and this is the conclusion i came up with. I'm more then happy to allow you to continue believing what you believe without debate or argument from me, since what you say defends my perspective as well as your own (you think life begins earlier, so you are just as dedicated to preserving life at the level i believe it starts as you are at the level you belive it starts) so i have no issue with you at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:07 am
Pregnancy doesn't begin at fertilization, it begins at implantation. But a human life begins before then, and preventing a blastula (or is it a gastrula?) from implanting would be like setting someone in the ocean and closing all entrances to a boat; eventually that person will drown unless he or she is extremely lucky.
Basically, we've all got our own DNA from the zygote stage. Some people who are pro-life are okay with the morning after pill, some aren't. By the time the morning after pill prevents implantation, though, you're not talking about a bunch of sex cells, you're talking about the actual early stages of a human being.
Of course naturally, most don't actually implant anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:08 am
I see nothing wrong with being called Anti-Abortion; We're for the illegalization of abortion, thus, we are anti-abortion. o.O Same reason Pro-Choicers are also Pro-Abortion, even though they typically seperate the two, calling people who try to push abortion on people "Pro-Abortion."
But regardless, in the sense that they are for abortion remaining legal, all Pro-Choicers are Pro-Abortion, just like all Pro-Lifers are Anti-Abortion in the sense that we want abortion, in varying degrees, to be illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:09 am
lymelady If everyone's allowed to decide when personhood begins, I say we lift the age limit to 90! whoah, wait a miniute, i do NOT support relativisim as it relates to abortion perspectives at ALL. If you can show me why i'm wrong, i would change my mind in a heartbeat, but from the research i've done, this seems to be the logical conclusion. Feel free to disagree, as i've said before your view defends mine as well, and i'll defend yours as it relates to mine, so i have no problem with your views, but please don't misunderstand. I've come to the conclusion i've arrived at from logic, reasoning, and scientific research, not because it just 'feels right.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:10 am
MiNdCaNdY lymelady If everyone's allowed to decide when personhood begins, I say we lift the age limit to 90! whoah, wait a miniute, i do NOT support relativisim as it relates to abortion perspectives at ALL. If you can show me why i'm wrong, i would change my mind in a heartbeat, but from the research i've done, this seems to be the logical conclusion. Feel free to disagree, as i've said before your view defends mine as well, and i'll defend yours as it relates to mine, so i have no problem with your views, but please don't misunderstand. I've come to the conclusion i've arrived at from logic, reasoning, and scientific research, not because it just 'feels right.' I wasn't talking about you! gonk I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was talking about the people who say, "Everyone should decide for themselves when personhood begins."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:13 am
MiNdCaNdY I.Am That's part of the point, Mindcandy. Who are we to decide when it becomes a person? Why is it not a person one day, and the next it is? Cell division make sense as a definite point; I disagree, but it makes sense. However, when they say, "It's not a person until after the first trimester! Or maybe the second trimester. Birth?" It's like, "Why is it a person then, but not the day before? Is there some magical event that occurs and suddenly it's a person?" Thus, the person fairy! I would say because, before that time, it's just a cell containg DNA, the information to create a human, not the human itself. Once human cells begin to form (Stem cells) then it's a growing human. I definatly respect your views, and i did share them for a while, but in this case i just have to say that i've done a lot of research, debate, and thinking and this is the conclusion i came up with. I'm more then happy to allow you to continue believing what you believe without debate or argument from me, since what you say defends my perspective as well as your own (you think life begins earlier, so you are just as dedicated to preserving life at the level i believe it starts as you are at the level you belive it starts) so i have no issue with you at all. Not to start a debate, but I'm slightly insulted that you are implying that you've thought about it more then I, and debated it more then I, so you know more then I. As I said, my opinion is that there is no person fairy. There's no time when a human is not a person. As soon as the sperm and egg have become one, they have a full set of human DNA making them human beings and persons in my eyes. Why should I wait for them to -start- growing? I know they -will- grow. I've done a lot of debate and a lot of research and a lot of thinking as well, but it has not changed my stance on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:14 am
I.Am I see nothing wrong with being called Anti-Abortion; We're for the illegalization of abortion, thus, we are anti-abortion. o.O Same reason Pro-Choicers are also Pro-Abortion, even though they typically seperate the two, calling people who try to push abortion on people "Pro-Abortion." But regardless, in the sense that they are for abortion remaining legal, all Pro-Choicers are Pro-Abortion, just like all Pro-Lifers are Anti-Abortion in the sense that we want abortion, in varying degrees, to be illegal. well let me define the terms for you. There are pro-life people that believe it's ok to terminate a pregnancy for the sake of saving the mother's life. An anti abortion person wishes to make abortion completely and total illegal, with no exceptions what so ever. I don't agree with that. I believe in the preservation of as much human life as possible, and if the mother dying would kill both her and the infant, then the doctor should do what he can to preserve both lives to the extent of his skill, but, if such a situation is uncureable, then a decision has to be made as to which life has priority, and in that situation, if, buy using logic, not opinion, it is the life of the mother, then abortion should be legal. Pro lifer means valuing life both inside and outside the womb. sorry, i didn't mean to spark a debate inside a lighthearted chatty topic. If you guys think we should move this, i'm more then happy to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:14 am
I'm with Andy on this one.
I'm thinking of doing a posting format saying, "Are you pro-life like me? Wear blue daisies!"
Just to tick them off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:14 am
lymelady MiNdCaNdY lymelady If everyone's allowed to decide when personhood begins, I say we lift the age limit to 90! whoah, wait a miniute, i do NOT support relativisim as it relates to abortion perspectives at ALL. If you can show me why i'm wrong, i would change my mind in a heartbeat, but from the research i've done, this seems to be the logical conclusion. Feel free to disagree, as i've said before your view defends mine as well, and i'll defend yours as it relates to mine, so i have no problem with your views, but please don't misunderstand. I've come to the conclusion i've arrived at from logic, reasoning, and scientific research, not because it just 'feels right.' I wasn't talking about you! gonk I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was talking about the people who say, "Everyone should decide for themselves when personhood begins." that's ok, i wasn't offended, i just thought i should explain myself. no harm done 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:15 am
That would actually be an excellent idea. The ED subforum needs some action.
Much like me. crying
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:19 am
See, I disagree, I think that is nitpicking, just like when they say that Pro-Abortion and Pro-Choice are different, because Pro-Abortion-ers support forced abortion.
Do I support the illegalization of abortion? Yes. So I'm Anti-Abortion. Situations where one or the other or both the mother and child would die are exceptions, rather then the rule; It stops being an abortion when it's in self defense.
Do they support abortion staying legal? Yes. So they are Pro-Abortion. There are some of them that support forced abortion, but that doesn't mean they deserve a special designation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 03, 2006 11:20 am
I.Am MiNdCaNdY I.Am That's part of the point, Mindcandy. Who are we to decide when it becomes a person? Why is it not a person one day, and the next it is? Cell division make sense as a definite point; I disagree, but it makes sense. However, when they say, "It's not a person until after the first trimester! Or maybe the second trimester. Birth?" It's like, "Why is it a person then, but not the day before? Is there some magical event that occurs and suddenly it's a person?" Thus, the person fairy! I would say because, before that time, it's just a cell containg DNA, the information to create a human, not the human itself. Once human cells begin to form (Stem cells) then it's a growing human. I definatly respect your views, and i did share them for a while, but in this case i just have to say that i've done a lot of research, debate, and thinking and this is the conclusion i came up with. I'm more then happy to allow you to continue believing what you believe without debate or argument from me, since what you say defends my perspective as well as your own (you think life begins earlier, so you are just as dedicated to preserving life at the level i believe it starts as you are at the level you belive it starts) so i have no issue with you at all. Not to start a debate, but I'm slightly insulted that you are implying that you've thought about it more then I, and debated it more then I, so you know more then I. As I said, my opinion is that there is no person fairy. There's no time when a human is not a person. As soon as the sperm and egg have become one, they have a full set of human DNA making them human beings and persons in my eyes. Why should I wait for them to -start- growing? I know they -will- grow. I've done a lot of debate and a lot of research and a lot of thinking as well, but it has not changed my stance on this. I never meant to imply that you didn't research or think about this, or turn this into a sort of pissing contest over who has read or thought the most, sorry if it sounded that way. As i've said, i'm fine with your stance and don't wish to argue with you. As far as i'm concerned we're on the same side, or at least 90%. I definatly consider myself pro life as i think killing a human inside it's mother is wrong, i just see it differently then you. You see, there is a complete set of DNA inside the sperm, and inside the egg. What happens after being firtilized is that the genes are weighed one against another, and the dominant gene comes out on top. I'm not out to change your stance, i'm not insulted by your disagreement with me, and hell, if people jumped on you for being pro life, i'd have your back in a second. I'm just saying that at the zygote stage it's still just information, it's just been weighed dominant vs recessive, it still hasn't begun to actually grow, and the growing part is where i consider life to begin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
