Those that are against abortion

For all you out there that believe life begins at conception and that all abortion is wrong, please note that most birth control ultimately relies on abortion, including IUDs, NuvoRing, and The Pill.

The Pill, How it Works and Fails

Q. I have heard some people say the pill has an abortifacient capacity. What does this word mean, and is it really true anyway?


A. Before answering this question it is very important that we all have a correct understanding of the key biological terms related to pregnancy. The following definitions have been accept by major medical texts for decades.


'Conception' refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about 7-8 day’s after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.


At the precise and unique moment of conception, a woman is 'pregnant' with "a new individual ". This is an accurate and informed medical description. It is the same terminology used by Prof. John Dwyer, pre-eminent Australian AIDS expert and researcher, who has described the moment that the sperm enters the ovum as the creation of a "new and unique individual". Well known medical writer, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, author of Everywoman, has also written that when the male genetic material from the sperm joins with the female genetic material in the ovum, " a new individual is formed".


To stop conception occurring, that is, to stop sperm and ovum joining, is contraception. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, vasectomy and tubal ligation are accurately described as methods of contraception. Obviously any drug or device used after conception has occurred cannot be termed a contraceptive.


The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is ‘abortifacient’. This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception.


You might be interested to know that many major medical dictionaries have definitions of ‘conception’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘contraception’ that are the same as those listed above.


It is medically dishonest to break from these definitions. And yet, this is precisely what some scientists have recently started to do. They seek to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. But as I mentioned ealier, implantation occurs 7-8 days after the new human person has come into existence. The pregnancy, and the new human person, are already many days old by the time implantation has occurred.


Therefore, what these scientists are trying to doing is get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the pill are really just contraceptive drugs. Do you see the clever shift in definitions these scientists are trying to make? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins, and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug – how it works!


Obviously many people object to abortifacient drugs because they can cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphrams etc), because these methods prevent new human life being created. Hence, if scientists succeed in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by amazed
It generally amazes me when people blame a woman for getting pregnant, while pretending she didn't have a man help her get that way.

Phrases such as "she should have kept her legs closed", "she should have used birth control", "she should have ...... (insert your own personal argument as to why SHE is to blame)".

All the while pretending that somewhere in these accusations ought to also include a he. ie: "he should have used birth control", "he should have kept it in his pants"... etc.

Stop blaming only the female as the male is also to blame.

So are you suggesting that since the man is also apart of it then he has the right to demand the woman to get an abortion when she wants to keep the baby? Or if the man wants to keep the baby the woman should be force to birth it for him?

A man already has the right to sign away his rights to a child. He also has the right to use birth control and to choose abstinence. He also has the right to file for custody. My nephew did it when his girlfriend wanted an abortion. He got custody and has been raising his child ever since. SHE signed her rights to the child away as soon as she gave birth. So what is your beef again?

We do not have a perfect world, pretending that blame only goes one direction just makes things worse. I am not pretending to have all the answers, I do know putting the blame on only one party is not the right answer.

Now, are you pro-death penalty? Are you against universal health care? Are you against social programs which assure life? Are you one of those who whine and moan about "socialism", or those socialistic programs which truly assure life? Have you adopted a child? Do you volunteer at abuse shelters or homeless shelters helping children? Do you support food stamps for low income families? Do you support welfare to help low income children? Do you support education for all through university to help assure children grow up to be adults who can be productive citizens?

Are you really pro-life? Or actually just pro-birth?

Peace

Let's go back to the old days and the old ways.
back street abortions.
someone with a little medical knowledge will give you a abortion.
you make bleed to death or go in to shock.

you could do another old way.
get in a hot bath drink lots of Gin.
then use a long bit of thick wire to kill it !
most likely kill yourself to.

Yes They did use't to do this a LOT.
should we go back to those days?
do you have any idea of the horrors that
happen when a girl if found to be pregnant.
the father of the girl would beat her so much that she Would miscarry.
if she lives she is a outcast.
she can never live in that area again.
no money no job!
ends up committing suicide.

Would That make You happy?
unless you have suffered this
you have NO right to condemn them .
So much FEAR you cannot bear it!

Abortion at any stage is murder. Even the founder of Planed Parenthood understood this fact.
Learn about abortion. It`s not to help the mother but a means of population control. It has been sold as a womans rights movement and all the sheep bought it hook line and sinker.

Some facts On Margaret Sanger.

``On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn``

"We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population," she said, "if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon


``Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.


"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.


"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

margaretsanger.blogspot.com...
www.dianedew.com...

Hard to argue her own words.

There is a huge real conspiracy to do with the selling of abortion as a womens choice when really everything people do are choices.

Also why would the CIA be into pushing abortions....en.wikipedia.org...

Digg..... they have tricked us into killing millions of our young.

reply to post by Xtrozero



¬QUOTE"

Plus many times i have seen it as the only choice many have decided on .....


Many times ??

Realy are you a doctor or maybe a counsellor?? as it is my experience that women don't

take the decision to terminate lightly. nor broadcast it to all and sundry!


What you have stated in your post is pure statistic's - NOT weather it was a FIRST or LAST

choice of the women, and neither has it taken into account the 'stress,' the 'pain'

the 'anguish' and 'soulsearching' that went into the reluctant decision to have a termination.

Originally posted by MathiasAndrew
i suggest that it be mandatory for anyone who claims to be anti-abortion that they must adopt a child.

If you're not willing to adopt a child then shut the hell up and mind your own business.

Devil's advocate here: If you are for abortion, are you willing to kill the baby?

reply to post by muse7

reply to post by muse7


OP you are certainly entitled to your own opinion, that's the beauty of ATS.

I do, however, disagree with the basis of your argument.

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity or as a "person".

Yes the baby's health is dependent upon the mother. BUT not considering the fetus a person is asinine. Isn't gold ore still gold? Isn't a rough diamond still a diamond? Why then do we treat the unrefined product of inanimate objects the same as the final product but not do the same for human beings? Sure you can't seperate a fetus from the mother early in a pregnancy, it is a process to bring a human life into this world.

Since when is not having respect for human life called being enlightened? No better yet, how can the subject of abortion be tied to enlightenment? Enlightenment is the freedom from suffering, desire, ignorance, its obtaining complete understanding and knowledge. Enlightenment is reaching a 'perfect' state. How in the world does abortion progress this?

reply to post by amazed


Seriously? This is a part of your argument?

Now, are you pro-death penalty? Are you against universal health care? Are you against social programs which assure life? Are you one of those who whine and moan about "socialism", or those socialistic programs which truly assure life? Have you adopted a child? Do you volunteer at abuse shelters or homeless shelters helping children? Do you support food stamps for low income families? Do you support welfare to help low income children? Do you support education for all through university to help assure children grow up to be adults who can be productive citizens?

Ridiculous. First, since when does socialism assure life? Socialism is an economic model that has a goal for equal quality of life for all but it is not a model for assuring life. In no way does socialism guarantee you will live. On top of that universal health care doesn't assure life for all either, especially if it takes months to even see a doctor. Just because somone doesn't support a system that is flawed doesn't mean they aren't pro-life. That is a huge assumption.

We ALL should be helping the less fortunate however we can. I think you will find very few people that would want to deny life for others.

Originally posted by Kyobosha
reply to post by amazed

 

Seriously? This is a part of your argument?

Now, are you pro-death penalty? Are you against universal health care? Are you against social programs which assure life? Are you one of those who whine and moan about "socialism", or those socialistic programs which truly assure life? Have you adopted a child? Do you volunteer at abuse shelters or homeless shelters helping children? Do you support food stamps for low income families? Do you support welfare to help low income children? Do you support education for all through university to help assure children grow up to be adults who can be productive citizens?

Ridiculous. First, since when does socialism assure life? Socialism is an economic model that has a goal for equal quality of life for all but it is not a model for assuring life. In no way does socialism guarantee you will live. On top of that universal health care doesn't assure life for all either, especially if it takes months to even see a doctor. Just because somone doesn't support a system that is flawed doesn't mean they aren't pro-life. That is a huge assumption.

We ALL should be helping the less fortunate however we can. I think you will find very few people that would want to deny life for others.

Where did I say "socialism guarantees life"? ahh, I did say "assure". Let me rephrase that to clarify my meaning. HELPS assure life. One word does help clarity the complete meaning.

You stated that universal health care can take months to get in to see a physician, that doesn't have to be the case as I suspect you very well know.

Especially if we as a society help children grow up healthy and intelligent, with a great education to..... guess what? Become doctors!

So, are you saying that only those who can afford health care deserve health care and everyone else can just go dig their own graves? Even those children you claim to care about? Ahhh I see you are a pro-birther not a pro-lifer, got it.

Talk about death panels. If you can afford health care great, if you can't then die, and possibly die a horrendous painful death all because you cannot afford health care, but only AFTER you are born. (sarcasm)

Oh, by the way, do you support the death penalty? Good job ignoring that very important question which "helps clarify" a claimed pro-lifers stance.

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by muse7
Are you also against the woman having an abortion if she gets raped by a family member/complete stranger?

If you're against abortion then that means that the woman should be forced to have the baby, all because your 1000+ year old book says it's an "evil" thing to do. It's a shame how religion still has a choke hold on social issues, especially in America. European countries are light years ahead of us when it comes to gay unions/marriage/abortion etc..Why? Because they have managed to set themselves free from the teachings of an ancient book that was based on nothing more than superstitions that are considered stupid and foolish by the majority of the scientific community.

You should stop making others feel guilty because of their personal decisions, at the end of the day it's THEIR life and not yours you don't know the situation they are in. Some of them don't like the idea of giving up the baby for adoption and they shouldn't be forced into anything because of the stupid beliefs that are still prominent amongst some.

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity or as a "person".

edit on 11/10/2011 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

So why exactly can't they have the baby and then within 3 days just turn it over to a Safe Haven drop-off point, with no questions asked? Or even give the baby up for adoption for those who want to have a baby but are unable to for medical reasons, etc.?

You need to step back and realize that you said that it is a shame that we believe that it is a bad thing to murder a baby. It is WAY more of a shame that you think it is OKAY for someone to MURDER A BABY. Satan most definitely has the majority of the world under his thumb when people get to the point where they actually believe that the mother's own selfish feelings out-weigh the right for a helpless, innocent baby to live.

If a woman is raped, don't murder the baby. Instead, throw the piece of scum who raped her into prison. If she doesn't want to take care of the baby, then give it up for adoption or drop it off at a Safe Haven point.

I like this one saying I heard some time back. It went something like: "If all the mothers of pro-choice believers had aborted their babies, we would have no problem with abortion today."

How dare anyone think that it is actually okay for a baby to be murdered before it has a chance at life.

There is simply NO excuse and no legitimate reason for a fetus to be aborted when consensual sex created that fetus and the mother's life is not threatened. Everyone who has the mental capacity to make the decision to have sex understand 100% that sex results in pregnancy and that contraceptives are prone to failure. You don't want to have to deal with pregnancy and children? Get yourself sterilized. It's that simple.

What it comes down to is that there are sadly many women who enjoy touting their "right" to end their child's life. Having authority over the life of another human being is the ultimate power. That's the only reason why there is a fight to keep abortion legal and easy in the first place. It's all to feed their ego and make them feel 'empowered' because they are so insecure that they need that. No woman who consents to sex is EVER 'forced' to give birth. The women who illogically complain about pregnancy (the natural consequence of their decision) had full control over the situation.

reply to post by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
...
4) Science and medicine seem to be moving in the pro-life direction considering the increased viability of children in the womb. This is a long discussion, but it's an important aspect.
...
Can we not have a reasoned discussion, even if it's a topic that has been parsed and hacked to death by the parties of hate and discontent (on both sides)? I feel it's possible.

Peace
KJ

Good to see some level headedness! I am on the other side of the argument, but it is nice to see some reasoned response rather than many of the highly emotional responses being presented here.

Concerning your point 4), (to me this is the most important aspect of this argument) can you provide any sources for that? I have spent a fair amount of time over the last few days combing through the available literature, and almost categorically the literature for this issue is from before the 1990's, mostly from the 60's and 70's, there just isn’t much research being done in this area anymore. I did come across one more recent paper that was looking at viability of the foetus, but it was dealing specifically with the 2nd and 3rd trimester.

I don't agree with 3rd trimester abortion, I am dubious about 2nd trimester abortion, especially in the mid to late stages, but in no way are 1st trimester foetuses viable beings.

Once the foetus is viable, that is the first point at which we can start attributing "rights" to the foetus, before that it is a purely parasitic dependent organism (by definition), so any rights are still solely the woman’s. There is a huge difference between parasitic dependency and post-viability dependency.

This is part of the reason why abortion is generally legal, and has been for decades, ever since the academic community came to a consensus on the definitions for life, death and viability decades ago.

Cheers

Originally posted by jeramie

Originally posted by muse7
Are you also against the woman having an abortion if she gets raped by a family member/complete stranger?

If you're against abortion then that means that the woman should be forced to have the baby, all because your 1000+ year old book says it's an "evil" thing to do. It's a shame how religion still has a choke hold on social issues, especially in America. European countries are light years ahead of us when it comes to gay unions/marriage/abortion etc..Why? Because they have managed to set themselves free from the teachings of an ancient book that was based on nothing more than superstitions that are considered stupid and foolish by the majority of the scientific community.

You should stop making others feel guilty because of their personal decisions, at the end of the day it's THEIR life and not yours you don't know the situation they are in. Some of them don't like the idea of giving up the baby for adoption and they shouldn't be forced into anything because of the stupid beliefs that are still prominent amongst some.

Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when the fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity or as a "person".

edit on 11/10/2011 by muse7 because: (no reason given)

So why exactly can't they have the baby and then within 3 days just turn it over to a Safe Haven drop-off point, with no questions asked? Or even give the baby up for adoption for those who want to have a baby but are unable to for medical reasons, etc.?

You need to step back and realize that you said that it is a shame that we believe that it is a bad thing to murder a baby. It is WAY more of a shame that you think it is OKAY for someone to MURDER A BABY. Satan most definitely has the majority of the world under his thumb when people get to the point where they actually believe that the mother's own selfish feelings out-weigh the right for a helpless, innocent baby to live.

If a woman is raped, don't murder the baby. Instead, throw the piece of scum who raped her into prison. If she doesn't want to take care of the baby, then give it up for adoption or drop it off at a Safe Haven point.

I like this one saying I heard some time back. It went something like: "If all the mothers of pro-choice believers had aborted their babies, we would have no problem with abortion today."

How dare anyone think that it is actually okay for a baby to be murdered before it has a chance at life.

Dear, Dear Jeramie,

You live in a small narrow minded world that seems too simple for concern about other people's feeling, especially when your answers are so black and white. You live in a world where sex should be punished, and it's the woman who pays the price, because of a fairy tale curse 6000 years old.

Why can't she just have the baby, then drop it off? Really, do you think a woman's body is a baby factory, free from risk and emotion? Who's going to pay for prenatal health? Does a woman lack free will after conception? Is a woman supposed to be an eternal victim to sexuality and physiology?

"Make the woman have an unwanted baby after rape and throw the punk in jail"....Yeah right if you can catch him and prove it.....

And just for emphasis, abortion is not murder it is a medical precedure. A fertilized embryo is not a living. breathing person!

Originally posted by windword

Is a woman supposed to be an eternal victim to sexuality and physiology?

That is so pathetic. A woman who gets herself knocked up is not a 'victim' in any sense of the word. You are treating women like helpless, mentally incompetent idiots. Pregnancy is not a punishment. It's a natural consequence of partaking in sex and a biological part of the reproduction process. When you say 'victim to sexuality', it sounds like you are demonizing sexuality.

You can stop any chance of pregnancy by simply having yourself sterilized. No reason to be so whiny.

You can try to dress up abortion as a 'medical procedure' or use any term you like to make you feel less guilty, bu it doesn't change the fact that you condone robbing innocent human beings of their life.

Originally posted by Charmed707

Originally posted by windword

Is a woman supposed to be an eternal victim to sexuality and physiology?

That is so pathetic. A woman who gets herself knocked up is not a 'victim' in any sense of the word. You are treating women like helpless, mentally incompetent idiots. Pregnancy is not a punishment. It's a natural consequence of partaking in sex and a biological part of the reproduction process. When you say 'victim to sexuality', it sounds like you are demonizing sexuality.

You can stop any chance of pregnancy by simply having yourself sterilized. No reason to be so whiny.

You can try to dress up abortion as a 'medical procedure' or use any term you like to make you feel less guilty, bu it doesn't change the fact that you condone robbing innocent human beings of their life.

Women don't "get themselves knocked up" alone. Your attitude is ignorant and barbaricaly chauvanistic.

So instead of risking becoming pregnant at an unwelcome time, a young woman should opt for sterilazation? WOW! You know sterilization is for life.

I have a better idea. How about forcing all men to get vasectomies, since virtually all pregnancies occur due to sperm, then there won't be any unwanted pregnancies and the father will always be culpable.

Abortion is a medical procedure. DUH! It is by law and definition, "not murder." It is the backdoor to all birth control except for those that literally block the sperm from entering the uterus, that's a fact that I have provided proof and links for throughout this thread.

Originally posted by windword

Women don't "get themselves knocked up" alone.

Pro-choicers claim the choice of whether or not to end the pregnancy is only in the hands of the woman. Therefore, it's HER body that's getting 'knocked up'.

Your attitude is ignorant and barbaricaly chauvanistic.

Oh please....your rhetoric is extremely anti-woman. You constantly talk about women as if they're too dense to understand the consequences of their actions and act as if they are completely helpless when it comes to controlling their reproduction. You also act ironically superstitious about women's reproductive systems. You talk as if pregnancy and women's bodies in general are a curse.

So instead of risking becoming pregnant at an unwelcome time, a young woman should opt for sterilazation?

Uh...yeah. Nothing outlandish about that. Why would you not want to be free from the risk of pregnancy if that's what you would hate to happen so much that you would kill your own child? Sterilization is an easy and obvious solution. Do you just love when innocent human beings are murdered?

WOW! You know sterilization is for life.

That's the point- never worrying about pregnancy.

I have a better idea. How about forcing all men to get vasectomies, since virtually all pregnancies occur due to sperm, then there won't be any unwanted pregnancies and the father will always be culpable.

Again with the hypocrisy. If abortion is only a woman's choice, then it's her responsibility to control her reproductive system.

Abortion is a medical procedure. DUH! It is by law and definition, "not murder."

The definition of anything can be legally changed. That's completely irrelevant. The law is not the holy grail. Slavery was once legal.

Originally posted by amazed

Now, are you pro-death penalty? Are you against universal health care? Are you against social programs which assure life? Are you one of those who whine and moan about "socialism", or those socialistic programs which truly assure life? Have you adopted a child? Do you volunteer at abuse shelters or homeless shelters helping children? Do you support food stamps for low income families? Do you support welfare to help low income children? Do you support education for all through university to help assure children grow up to be adults who can be productive citizens?

Are you really pro-life? Or actually just pro-birth?

Peace

None of above....


So I guess you believe that cutting a person's throat or voting against universal health care are one and the same.

reply to post by Charmed707


You have aparently not read the posts I have oppined in this thread about the religious overtones of and the curse of Eve that the religous patriarchy insists on imposing on women, yet men have done everyhting possible to defy God's curse upon them.

The reason that I reply to ignorant caveman minded opinions is to let the ones that are too intimidated to engage loud mouth bigots that there are those who will stand up and fight to keep and expand woman's rights,

I have been involved in this movement for some 40 years and believe me I know about the plight of women to control their own reproductive physiology. BIrth control isn't 100% effective and, in my experience, many men coerce women to not use spermicide or condoms.

Further, this new movement to grant personhood to the unborn, threatens the few systems of birth control that are now being used, such as the IUD, the Pill and NuvoRing. This is dangerous legislation and a real threat to the way fo life and the health of all women today.

I still say that before we legislate against a woman's right, we should forcibly require all men, when they reach puberty, to undergo mantatory vasectomy. Why not? When they're ready to reproduce and not just #*&6%, they can have it reversed.

I think it's dispicable to suggest that a woman who finds herself in a compromised position and seeking to terminate her pregnancy should face the rest of her life with no chance at giving birth, ever, as a punishment. They male hypocricy on this issue is thoughly embedded with control and envy.

If a woman has casual sex, she's a slut, a whore, a fluzzie and a Jezzabel, but how do we treat a man about town? This double standard is changing, thank god, but it's a long haul as long as we still have these religious nuts trying to pry into our uteri and sexuality.

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
I've always wanted to ask this of pro-lifers. If abortion was deemed illegal for the reasons stated..."it is a life", "it is wrong to take a life for any reason"...etc.

Usually when someone takes a life for their own personal interest we call that murder even though life is taken many different ways all the time, and when society decides that we can do that and not call it murder we cheapen the value of life. To get around that with abortion we decided that a unborn is not really human after all, but a thing, so it can be killed for one's own personal interest. Whether it's alive or not is not really debated, but whether it's a thing or human is where we conveniently decide to make, I guess, abortion more bearable and lesson the guilt of killing one's own future child.

I say take the life. but at least call it what it is....