I know this is off topic, but I have to respond to this. . . Viagra TREATS erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is a medical condition. Birth control taken for contraception is NOT treating anything. Keeping you from getting pregnant is NOT a medical condition. On top of that, the OVERWHELMING majority of insurance companies DO cover birth control, for two reasons, #1 - it is much more cost effective (babies are VERY expensive), #2 - consumer demand. Viagra, and other treatments for erectile dysfunction, are only covered about 1/2 of the time, and with strict quantity limits, usually ranging from 4 to 8 tablets per month. Another interesting twist to the abortion argument, many people, including Huck (I think), consider progestin-only BCP's and emergency contraception to by synonymous with abortion. . .
You might want to explain that these drugs prevent implantation, not just fertilization. Many people (including pro-lifers) don't understand this.
PROGESTIN-ONLY BCP'S: Progestins may prevent pregnancy by: preventing the ovary from releasing an egg. thickening the cervical mucus to prevent sperm from entering the Fallopian tubes to fertilize an egg. changing the lining of the uterus, so a fertilized egg cannot implant and grow. changing the contractions in the Fallopian tubes, so the sperm and egg cannot meet and travel to the uterus.
EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION: CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
COMBINATION ESTROGEN-PROGESTIN BCP'S: Combination oral contraceptives act by suppression of gonadotropins. Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus) and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation). _____ All BCP's (or any other hormonal birth control, ie, the ring, the patch, the shot) can work by inhibiting implantation of a fertilized egg, but it is much more likely to work that way with progestin only pills (or the shot) or emergency birth control pills. _____ There is all the info. . . I am ALL FOR ALL THREE OF THEM!
Im not being an ignorant fool, i am speaking the truth... once the babies out of the womb, ya wont give a fuck if their mom cant afford to feed the baby, or if the mom cant afford to take it to the hospital when it needs it... you'll let the drug companies raise the prices of medicine, let the hospital lines increase and the cost increase while the service gets shittier and shittier... and at the same time you'll claim how much you care about human life... complete bullshit! if you cared about human life you wouldnt sacrafice it for money. Besides, Human life isnt sacred... quite the opposite.. this is why I dont even give a fuck about abortion... i just want to stop seeing these retarded pro-life billboards all around my town. In an extremely overpopulated world, which is growing EXPONENTIALLY... the last thing we need is retarded abortion laws.
A sperm/egg WILL develop into a human being given the proper environment (each other). Also, if I understood you correctly you're against drugs that prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Will a fertilized egg that has not been implanted develop into a human being, any more than a sperm or egg cell will? No. Is this not inconsistent? You're right, I don't have a moral basis for opposing it. I have a legal basis for opposing it. So what? You still haven't explained what you find inconsistent about this position.
What?! Get a book on biology! You must have been held back in school... The hell we don't. Speak for yourself.
The point is that no one does, therefore it is logical to error on the side of caution and NOT TAKE a life. Science has provided us (those of us that are literate) with the sound conclusion that an unborn child is indeed "human". You must have slept through it.
I agree. However there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a few cells cannot think for themselves. We merely disagree on HOW MUCH we need to err on the side of caution; setting the cutoff at birth is plenty. That's funny, since I'm a biology professor and took plenty of biology classes, yet I've never once read anything in a biology book or science journal that indicates that a clump of cells are anything more than a clump of cells. (Didn't you just say one paragraph ago that no one knows? Now science has conclusively proven this. Which is it?) Until you tell me how you define "human" and explain why your particular definition has more moral weight than mine (which you have refused to do for several months now), there's no point continuing this conversation.
Neither a sperm nor an egg by themselves will develop as a human being in any environment. Upon fertilization, neither sperm nor egg exists as such; a new organisim is formed. A supposed biology professor shouldn't have so much trouble grasping this simple fact. First of all, "fertilized egg" is a misnomer for a 1-week old human embryo that has grown hundredfold since conception occured. Second, the human embryo needs only the proper environment and nutrition (provided by implantation) to thrive. Once again, a sperm or an egg cannot thrive, regardless of environment. Your legal "basis" is purely a matter of expedience, with no moral foundation. "It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoa and the resulting mingling of the chromosomal material each brings to the union that culminates the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual. Every one of the higher animals starts life as a single cell the fertilized ovum. The union of two such sex cells to form a zygote constitutes the process of fertilization and initiates the life of a new individual." Bradley M. Patten, M.D. (3rd Edition, 1968), New York City: McGraw-Hill. "The formation, maturation and meeting of a male and female sex cell are all preliminary to their actual union into a combined cell, or zygote, which definitely marks the beginning of a new individual." Leslie Arey. (7th Edition, 1974). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. "Zygote. This cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being ... Development begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an oocyte to form a zygote. Each of us started life as a cell called a zygote." K.L. Moore. (2nd Ed., 1977). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 1 and 12. "The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops. It is synonymous with the terms fecundation, impregnation, and fertilization ... The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life." J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Freidman. . Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Publishers. Pages 17 and 23. "A human being develops from a mass of living material no larger than a pinhead, material contributed by both parents and capable of living and growing for a lifetime ... This genetic makeup was established at the beginning of your life, when a haploid egg and a haploid sperm combined to produce a diploid zygote, your first somatic cell." J.H. Otto and A. Towle. . New York City: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. 1969. "The zygote is the starting cell of the new individual." Salvadore E. Luria, M.D. <36 Lectures in Biology>. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Press, 1975, page 146. "It is widely accepted and widely taught that human beings as well as other organisms reproducing by sexual reproduction …this is nothing unique to humans; this is a general biological principle ..start their existence at the time of conception or fertilization, as a single cell, the zygote." Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, M.D., Harvard Medical School, quoted in the , 97th Congress, 1st Session, April 23, 1981. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite, a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter, M.D., and J.M. Craig, M.D. ., 3rd Edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975, page vii. "Based on my education and background, therefore, I believe that from the moment of the union of the sperm and the egg in the human species, there is present a new living human being. The human life is there from the moment of fertilization, and its very essence starts early but is not completed until the second decade of life. I submit that human life is present throughout this entire sequence from conception to adulthood, and that interruption at any point constitutes termination of human life." Alfred M. Bongiovanni, M.D., University of Pennsylvania Medical Professor, before the Senate Judiciary Committee, April 24, 1981. "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced, it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous, whether intra- or extra- uterine, until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices." "A New Ethic for Medicine and Society," 113 67, 68 (1970). "Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being, a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings ... Those witnesses who testified that science cannot say whether unborn children are human beings were speaking in every instance to the value question rather than the scientific question. No witness raised any evidence to refute the biological fact that from the moment of human conception there exists a distinct individual being who is alive and is of the human species." Report of the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to the Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981, page 7.
A new organism is formed, yes. Is this new organism a human being that can think rationally and is aware of his own existence? No. You're splitting hairs. A human embryo that cannot been implanted is no more likely to develop than a sperm or egg cell. Yes...and you're point? A couple of things about your sources: 1. None of them say that a fetus is capable of thought. If you don't plan on convincing me of that I see no resolution to this discussion, because I do not and will not accept that a non-thinking, non-aware entity has a right to life. 2. Some of them are practically dripping with emotional attacks, rather than actual information: "The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices." 3. None of these sources are anywhere close to being up-to-date! The most recent one is from 1981. Why do you have to go back 25 years to find sources? Don't any of today's sources agree with your pre-drawn conclusion? Some of these sources aren't even scientific in nature, they're just scientists giving their opinions to Congress.
i feel very strongly about this issue and im just stating my opinion yes abortion is killing. but its gets on my nerves when people who are anti abortion think its so easy for women...its like they are saying...its doesnt matter if you got raped...bring that baby up...it doesnt matter you will have a severly disabled baby who would never b able to lead a normal life...you cant abort it...it doesnt matter your boyfriend/husband left you....its doesnt matter it may damage your health you must give birth to that baby because its killing...im not being funny...it is a living thing i get tht but it doesnt know what its like to live like we do its not experinced anything tht we have...personally i think people who are anti shouldnt change their minds or views cos we all have opinions...but all i ask it for them not to judge a woman who decides to abort her child
You could say the same of any human being who's deprived of needed sustenance. Expedience is a flimsy basis for protecting human rights. OK. End of debate. That quote comes from a decidely "pro-choice" article in California Medicine, then the official journal of the California Medical Association. Unlike you, however, it was honest enough to admit that abortion snuffs out human life. Have we recently discovered something radically new about the nature of human conception?
Does it matter? Its going to happen in the open or in the backalleys. I don't think anyone wakes up one day with the intention of getting pregant because having an abortion sounds like a blast. Well actually I imagine someone has but probably not many. I guess its better than any accidents get ended while you can still count the number of cells on your finger than wait 9 months and throw it in a river.
There is no question that the fetus is a human, what no one knows is what is right and what is wrong morally, but most of us have a pretty good idea. It is defined scientifically (the only way), the very same way an elephant fetus is an elephant, etc. Do human women give birth to lions? The ability to think does not make someone human. Terry S. did not become something other than "human" once her accident occured. Surely any biologist would agree. Of course, I don't for a second believe you are a professor of science.
What makes you think that the scientific definition of "human" is in any way applicable to the morality of taking that entity's life? This is equivocation to the extreme. Ask yourself WHY you think protecting human life is a good idea: Is it because we're self-aware and capable of thought, or is it because human DNA is somehow superior to every other molecule in the universe? You aren't going to convince me that an entity is deserving of life because some day, somewhere, it might have the potential of eventually becoming self-aware. Maybe if you came up with a better argument than "Human life = good" with no explanation whatsoever for why you believe that. But of course you won't do that, because actually thinking might make your head hurt.
