It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by queenofswords
Really? What's the difference in consciously deciding to make the womb a hostile environment for the fertilized egg, or medically removing it from the uterine sidewall? Is it more human once it attaches?
Double standard much?
Some forms of contraception, specifically the intrauterine device (IUD), Norplant, and certain low-dose oral contraceptives, often do not prevent conception but prevent implantation of an already fertilized ovum. The result is an early abortion, the killing of an already conceived individual. Tragically, many women are not told this by their physicians, and therefore do not make an informed choice about which contraceptive to use.”
www.epm.org...
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
How many times do you guys need to have the concept of conception explained to you?
Conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That doesn't 100% mean a future baby because it only becomes viable once implanted on the uterine walls.
When you have a fertilized chicken egg do you call it a chicken already? Or do you call it an embryo or fetus inside of the egg? When an apple tree is pollinated do you automatically call them apples or just blossoms?
During all but one of my children's pregnancies, I would sing songs and read books to them. I can tell you from my own experience that those babies did backflips to the sound of my voice. Chicken eggs don't do that, neither do apples, nor parasites, nor mindless clumps of cells.
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
How many times do you guys need to have the concept of conception explained to you?
Conception is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. That doesn't 100% mean a future baby because it only becomes viable once implanted on the uterine wall.
So now you're judge, jury, and fortune teller? Lottery numbers please.
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.
You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.
You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.
It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.
You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.
It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.
If you're going to debate me, then debate ME. I've already told you twice that I DO NOT APPROVE OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HARM FERTILIZED EGGS.
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
Originally posted by Bone75
Originally posted by MonkeyFishFrog
reply to post by queenofswords
Some of the "preventative" measures of these contraceptives is specifically for preventing implantation not fertilization. According to your definition of life beginning at "conception" then these too are the same as abortion or murder.
You sound like a pro-choice broken record. No one in this conversation is approving contraceptives that harm fertilized eggs, yet you still see the need to hammer home this point. I thought you guys didn't like regurgitated arguments.
It all comes back to the life argument and what constitutes life. If you can allow for these contraceptives then I can't understand someone arguing staunchly against abortion when they do the same thing.
If you're going to debate me, then debate ME. I've already told you twice that I DO NOT APPROVE OF CONTRACEPTIVES THAT HARM FERTILIZED EGGS.
And if you look, I wasn't responding to one of your posts originally but another member's (unless of course you are also queenofwords). I have no idea why you are jumping down my throat. I have no doubt what your belief is on the matter of contraceptives as you've stated them plainly all over this thread.edit on 11/11/2012 by MonkeyFishFrog because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
The "life begins at conception" road easily becomes a slippery, muddy slope.
The moment of conception and the moment of death are the only possible places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Bone75
The moment of conception and the moment of death are the only possible places to draw a line between a man's existence and his non-existence. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
No! No!
The moment of birth, when one draws their first breath. You know, their birthday? The day that is written on that thing called a "Birth Certificate?" That is beginning of ones existence into this society.
Originally posted by Bone75
reply to post by windword
Now let's talk about that picture for a minute and compare what you can plainly see with your own eyes to what's coming out of your mouth (I know, its another metaphor).
First a little about the picture, and by the way, thank you GideonFaith for sharing this in another thread.
The hand in the picture is that of Samual Armas at 21 weeks from the moment of his conception. He is undergoing surgery to correct his spina bifida, while still in his mother's womb.
Your entire argument is that life begins upon birth and the first breath...
So by your logic, when Samual gets older and someone asks him if he's ever had surgery...
he should say no?