Pro-life/Pro-choice poll

[Thalia]

I think, with regards to the law, until those who are pro-life can prove that a foetus is a living person, rather than the equivalent of a parasite that can't survive without the mother (not meaning to be emotive with the word parasite, just can't think of another word that gets across what i'm trying to say), then to make it illegal would be to try and force a religious/spiritual belief on people, in no different a way than those who don't approve of the morning after pill.

I do not believe that a foetus is a living being before a certain point (which is what the law shows with the 22 weeks cut off point) and i don't think that i, or anyone else who believes that, should be refused an abortion based on the unsubstantiated claims of those who disagree with us.

Of course, i'm not saying that abortion isn't a horrible to choice to have to make, i don't think that anyone should make it lightly and they should take time to really be sure that it's what they want to do. But i remember reading a philosophy article that made me think of it in terms of this:

I am the mother. I choose to not carry this child anymore. If, before 22 weeks, it miraculously survives then that's fine - when i agreed to the abortion i wasn't saying i wanted it dead, i just didn't want to carry it. I have no right to kill it now, but conversely, that child had no right to stay in my body when i didn't want it there. And if it doesn't survive on its own without me, then i don't believe that it can be called a living being.

((yeah, i know the last point might be a bit harsh, i know i couldn't think so objectively if i was in that position, but hey, it'll get the argument going i'm sure ))

[hr]

The shadow proves the sunshine...

[Frank]

Quoting Thalia from 16:53, 3rd Apr 2006
I think, with regards to the law, until those who are pro-life can prove that a foetus is a living person, rather than the equivalent of a parasite that can't survive without the mother (not meaning to be emotive with the word parasite, just can't think of another word that gets across what i'm trying to say), then to make it illegal would be to try and force a religious/spiritual belief on people, in no different a way than those who don't approve of the morning after pill.

1- I don't see how the distinction is any more religious/spiritual than many decisions. Why, of interest, is it illegal to kill?
2- Proof it isn't simply another stage of a living person. I'd say babies are still relatively parasitic in the terms you use, except for the small fact they aren't joined physically.

Personally I'm Pro-life, but understand that abortion is perhaps a ... necessary evil. I realise that's particularly emotive, but I don't see how killing[or less blatantly: ending] an immediately pre-birth foetus is any different to killing a born baby. I don't see where a distinct line can be drawn. Hence I think it's safer to draw it at the moment of conception. However, this is a distinct move from my opinion on the reasons that "It's a woman's body, she can do what she likes with it" reason works.

Why? Well, I'd say it doesn't. Not neccesserilly. It may be the woman's body, but there's also the parasite/foetus/baby to consider. Not only that, but the father too.

IMO it seems wildly selfish and naive to go about flying the flag of 'It's a woman's choice', which is why I'm also glad so few/no people have been doing it here.

Again, that final point can be said of alot of things:
- Severely mentally impaired
- Babies
- Toddlers
- Children
- Physically and mentally impaired older folks
- Physically and mentally impaired 'any' folks for that matter.

Frankly, that style of argument doesn't really hold much weight IMO, unless you are also proposing throwing up alot of the basis of modern society[if you were proposing this, then it wouldn't seem there'd be as large holes in that line of argument]

Frank

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."

[DrAlex]

Quoting Frank from 17:08, 3rd Apr 2006
I'd say babies are still relatively parasitic in the terms you use, except for the small fact they aren't joined physically.

Surely there is an error in that line, and it doesn't say what you mean. Babies and mothers not joined physically? Physical connection necessary to deem a relationship parasitic? No?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Manic23]

Quoting DrAlex from 16:38, 3rd Apr 2006
How do our resident pro-lifers feel about the morning after pill?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

Well, saying as it's about as far removed from being an abortion as possible, I believe it's a good thing.

I assume by your username that you have some affiliation to the study of science, if not directly to medicine, so I won't go into the intracies of how it works. However, as I'm sure you know, the point of the pill is that it prevents ovulation*, not that it 'kills' an already created entity.

I also assume that by your question, you assume all pro-lifers are religious, and what you were insinuating was that we believe life is created the moment from conception.

Not at all. Therefore I have no qualms with the Morning after pill.

EDIT: *I meant fertilisation

[Happy-Go-Lucky]

I think you may have miss-read there, Manic. DrAlex is speaking of the "morning-after pill", not "The Pill" which appears to be the one you are describing. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong though.

I am a very strong supporter of pro-choice, but I do not feel strong enough right now to list my reasons, and I sense they would somewhat fall on deaf ears anyway. The pro-life/choice debate is one of those things that people tend to have a set opinion on, and no amount of arguing or debate will ever sway either side to the other's view point.

Quoting Manic23 from 17:30, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting DrAlex from 16:38, 3rd Apr 2006
How do our resident pro-lifers feel about the morning after pill?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

Well, saying as it's about as far removed from being an abortion as possible, I believe it's a good thing.

I assume by your username that you have some affiliation to the study of science, if not directly to medicine, so I won't go into the intracies of how it works. However, as I'm sure you know, the point of the pill is that it prevents ovulation, not that it 'kills' an already created entity.

I also assume that by your question, you assume all pro-lifers are religious, and what you were insinuating was that we believe life is created the moment from conception.

Not at all. Therefore I have no qualms with the Morning after pill.

[hr]

http://standrews.thefacebook.com/profil ... d=37100117

[Manic23]

Quoting Happy-Go-Lucky from 17:43, 3rd Apr 2006
I think you may have miss-read there, Manic. DrAlex is speaking of the "morning-after pill", not "The Pill" which appears to be the one you are describing. Don't shoot me if I'm wrong though.

I am a very strong supporter of pro-choice, but I do not feel strong enough right now to list my reasons, and I sense they would somewhat fall on deaf ears anyway. The pro-life/choice debate is one of those things that people tend to have a set opinion on, and no amount of arguing or debate will ever sway either side to the other's view point.

Quoting Manic23 from 17:30, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting DrAlex from 16:38, 3rd Apr 2006
How do our resident pro-lifers feel about the morning after pill?

[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

Well, saying as it's about as far removed from being an abortion as possible, I believe it's a good thing.

I assume by your username that you have some affiliation to the study of science, if not directly to medicine, so I won't go into the intracies of how it works. However, as I'm sure you know, the point of the pill is that it prevents ovulation, not that it 'kills' an already created entity.

I also assume that by your question, you assume all pro-lifers are religious, and what you were insinuating was that we believe life is created the moment from conception.

Not at all. Therefore I have no qualms with the Morning after pill.

[hr]

http://standrews.thefacebook.com/profil ... d=37100117

No, I meant morning after pill. See my correction on previous post

[Thalia]

Quoting Frank from 17:08, 3rd Apr 2006

1- I don't see how the distinction is any more religious/spiritual than many decisions. Why, of interest, is it illegal to kill?

The distinction is more religious/spiritual because, as i said, if you removed the foetus from the mother before a certain point then it would be unable to survive. I do not think it can be qualified as a life in its own right in that case as it *needs* the mother, not just in the way that a baby relies on the mother (a baby could be quite easily provided for by another adult), but in that it will die if it doesn't stay inside the mother.

However, any argument to call a foetus a life before it can survive without the mother, inherantly brings in an assumption of an existence in its own right which, at that point, i don't believe it has.


[hr]

The shadow proves the sunshine...

[Rufus]

Quoting Fozzy Bear from 14:17, 3rd Apr 2006

the easier way to lesson the number of unwated children in the world is to...no have sex!! :p
of course, you could always just use some form of contraception, thats what its made for after all.

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month

It's not as simple as that:

'An average 10 percent of women using contraceptives become pregnant.
Nine to 12 percent of women using reversible contraceptives become pregnant within the first 12 months of starting use.
Six out of 10 pregnancies resulting from contraceptive failure end in abortion.
The birth control pill resulted in failure rates of eight percent and seven percent in the studies.
Condom failure rates were nine percent and 14 percent.
The diaphragm had 12 percent and 20 percent failure rates.
According to Princeton, of the three million pregnancies in 1994, 48 percent were unplanned. Of those unplanned, 53 percent were among women using contraceptives.
A woman discontinues using contraception about 10 times during her lifetime and averages two unplanned pregnancies'

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1043/CWA/family/index.htm

[hr]

Hell smells of raw potatoes.

[smiley]

Manic23. (Sorry, don't know how to quote) The way the morning after pill works is it prevents implantation of the egg into the wall of the uterus.

It does this by causing movement of the uterine tubes and the egg will be moved along too quickly so that when it arrives in the uterus the uterus is not ready to recieve it. By this time the egg could have been fertilised.

The morning after pill does not prevent fertilisation. It just prevents the fertilised egg from settling in the womb and developing further.

[Thalia]

I don't know about other forms of contraceptives, but with regards to the pill, the majority of failures are related to incorrect use, with those who take it consistantly and correctly, i think the failure rate is actually only around 1%.

Of course, the best way to avoid pregnancy would be to use something like the pill along with condoms - which is what doctors would recommend anyway to avoid STIs.

[hr]

The shadow proves the sunshine...

[Insight]

*Intermission for a plug*

See your Sinner calendar for times and locations of the various schemes Your Union has set-up to help you avoid unwanted pregnancies/STIs.

*Sorry - back to the debate*

[hr]

SRC Member for Sexualities & Genders

[Setsuna]

I agree with Neeeeeeeewty Dave that the abortion should only be performed during the first trimester, or before significant neural development. Also, the morning after pill (as smiley said) as a form of abortion, of a tiny ball of cells.

I am pro-choice, although I doubt I could go through with an abortion myself. This is because of my personal feelings about having children, and because I know I could cope with the 'inconvenience' at this point in time. However, when I had a pregnancy scare aged 16, I would have gone for it. I could not have cared for the child in my mental state, and I would have had no means of supporting a child independently.

I know this may prove slightly controversial, but I really dont think a man can fully understand the strain that an unwanted pregnancy can put on a woman, especially young girls. In pregnancy, we compromise our lives in many more ways then men do, in health, career and in our plans. In a way, it's just our biological fate.

Abortions should be available up to 12 weeks, and women shouldnt have to go to lengths to 'prove' their eligibility for one at what is already a stressful enough time.

[Fozzy Bear]

Quoting Rufus from 17:48, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting Fozzy Bear from 14:17, 3rd Apr 2006

the easier way to lesson the number of unwated children in the world is to...no have sex!! :p
of course, you could always just use some form of contraception, thats what its made for after all.

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month

It's not as simple as that:

'An average 10 percent of women using contraceptives become pregnant.
Nine to 12 percent of women using reversible contraceptives become pregnant within the first 12 months of starting use.
Six out of 10 pregnancies resulting from contraceptive failure end in abortion.
The birth control pill resulted in failure rates of eight percent and seven percent in the studies.
Condom failure rates were nine percent and 14 percent.
The diaphragm had 12 percent and 20 percent failure rates.
According to Princeton, of the three million pregnancies in 1994, 48 percent were unplanned. Of those unplanned, 53 percent were among women using contraceptives.
A woman discontinues using contraception about 10 times during her lifetime and averages two unplanned pregnancies'

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1043/CWA/family/index.htm

[hr]

Hell smells of raw potatoes.

more statistics. what fun. :p
As Thalia said, the majority of failures with contraceptives are due to incorrect use.

but if you saw my first point you quoted, it's by far the safest option and not exactly that hard is it. :p

(waits for any bad jokes or remarks about how hard people think it is)

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month

[theflirt]

Quoting Fozzy Bear from 18:18, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting Rufus from 17:48, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting Fozzy Bear from 14:17, 3rd Apr 2006

the easier way to lesson the number of unwated children in the world is to...no have sex!! :p
of course, you could always just use some form of contraception, thats what its made for after all.

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month

It's not as simple as that:

'An average 10 percent of women using contraceptives become pregnant.
Nine to 12 percent of women using reversible contraceptives become pregnant within the first 12 months of starting use.
Six out of 10 pregnancies resulting from contraceptive failure end in abortion.
The birth control pill resulted in failure rates of eight percent and seven percent in the studies.
Condom failure rates were nine percent and 14 percent.
The diaphragm had 12 percent and 20 percent failure rates.
According to Princeton, of the three million pregnancies in 1994, 48 percent were unplanned. Of those unplanned, 53 percent were among women using contraceptives.
A woman discontinues using contraception about 10 times during her lifetime and averages two unplanned pregnancies'

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/1043/CWA/family/index.htm

[hr]

Hell smells of raw potatoes.

more statistics. what fun. :p
As Thalia said, the majority of failures with contraceptives are due to incorrect use.

but if you saw my first point you quoted, it's by far the safest option and not exactly that hard is it. :p

(waits for any bad jokes or remarks about how hard people think it is)

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month

It can be quite "hard" actually. If you are totally in love with someone and don't ever want to be away from them, then it is can be VERY hard and frustrating to not have sex, let alone peer pressure, demands of being in a relationship (which i guess would come under peer pressure) etc.
It is, after, an act of love...well in theory anyways...

[hr]

Oh pants!

[Rufus]

Fozzy Bear, not having sex in order to prevent pregnancy is much like not eating mussels to prevent a jippy tummy.

The statistics (sorry!) were really in response to your insinuation that those who need to have an abortion have brought it entirely on themselves, which is just not true.

And, because this thread is like wading through moral treacle:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eAqqP6PoIw4& ... 27s%20fire

[hr]

Hell smells of raw potatoes.

[macgamer]

Abortion is a moral phenomenon that is a result of taking sex outside of its intended purpose.

Until people realise that they cannot have 'sex without consequences' then there will be 'unwanted pregnancies'.

Sex means babies, when a women becomes pregnant the life that is created within her maybe labelled different things at different points during its development, but it always if allowed to, becomes a human person, a child. No one can deny that. Anyone who does is deceiving themselves and the poor women who undergo abortions.

I find it highly irresponsible of abortionists to encourage the practice without properly informing the women, this has lead to the serious psychological trauma of so many, when they realise what has really happened.

That is why more charities like the Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative need to be supported and setup to provide an alternative for abortion, supporting women financially, emotional and practically if they choose to have their baby.

What a lamentable situation these women are in.

[themushroomgod]

*sigh* I wondered when macgamer'd turn up on tis thread.

Firstly, macgamer, you say that abortion is a phenominon resulting from people taking sex outside it's purpose. But just what is that purpose? I assume that you're trying to argue that procreation is the sole aim of intercourse. If so, you're dead wrong!

Even during the short period each month in which a woman is fertile, there is only a 20% chance of an egg being fertilised. Additionally, even after the egg IS fertilised, 80% of fertilised eggs fail to develop past the blastocyst stage; they are simply washed out of the womb in the next peroid.

Thus, we see that only 4% sexual intercourse, even at the right time of the month, will result in pregnancy.

Can you really claim that procreation is the only point to sex?



[hr]

Ooh! A Monkey!

[Cain]

Quoting Rufus from 17:48, 3rd Apr 2006
Nine to 12 percent of women using reversible contraceptives become pregnant within the first 12 months of starting use.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's a reversible contraceptive?

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

[DrAlex]

Quoting macgamer from 21:08, 3rd Apr 2006
but it always if allowed to, becomes a human person, a child. No one can deny that.

Quoting themushroomgod from 21:42, 3rd Apr 2006
there is only a 20% chance of an egg being fertilised. Additionally, even after the egg IS fertilised, 80% of fertilised eggs fail to develop past the blastocyst stage; they are simply washed out of the womb in the next peroid.

Not to mention still-births and miscarriages...

As far as sex having an "intended purpose", consider the bonobo chimpanzee, a rapidly disappearing species, that use sex as a form of social bonding and ammending rifts in the group.
[hr]

"Listen to DrAlex."-Polli
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Fozzy Bear]

Quoting Cain from 22:19, 3rd Apr 2006

Quoting Rufus from 17:48, 3rd Apr 2006
Nine to 12 percent of women using reversible contraceptives become pregnant within the first 12 months of starting use.

Excuse my ignorance, but what's a reversible contraceptive?

[hr]

I hold an element of surprise

i think it might be something like the pill, condoms, any standard contraceptives. i would assume that an irreversible one is things like having the snip and other equivalents.

[hr]

Advertise your business here. £4.99 a month