So taking a morning after pill is basically the same as having an abortion, right?

http://acog.org/from_home/departments/dept_notice.cfm?recno=18&bulletin=1077

http://sales.acog.com/acb/stores/1/product1.cfm?SID=1&Product_ID=20

The medical profession considers it to be distinct from abortion, because it is intended to prevent a fertilized ovum from implanting in the uterine lining. In nature, not all fertilized eggs wind up in the uterine lining, and thus do not result in a discernable pregnancy.

But if you're thinking about emergency contraception, call 1-888-NOT-2-LATE or 1-800-230-PLAN (7526) NOW.

(http://plannedparenthood.org/ec/)

And what does dnftt mean, Mr. Noodles?

I regrettably haven't given abortion enough thought in my life, so my views are hardly deeply entrenched. And I'm not religious in the slightest, so there isn't any Jesus-guilt working it's mojo on me. This is just what seems to make sense to me at the moment (and/or maybe my natural tendency to make myself feel like shit is influencing my thought process too). If someone can give me some good arguments as to why life doesn't begin at conception, I'll be a much happier person. I'll buy you a drink or something.

I'm loathe to participate in this discussion, because I've had personal experience of both the morning after pill and RU-486. Neither were easy experiences, physically or emotionally. Though the morning after pill was a lot easier decision to make on a moral ground.

The closest I can get to offering you some kind of answer is this: Fertilisation happens a lot more often that than most women realise. Not every fertilised egg actually implants, for one reason or another - sometimes it just passes through, and the woman never even knows that it happens. Sometimes the body spontaneously rejects the egg, even after implantations (if the couple were not "trying" and the woman had not taken a pregnancy test, they never would actually have known she had been fertilised) - for various reasons, because the woman has been exposed to pathogens (the chicken pox is a common culprit) or for reasons of diet.

I'm uncomfortable with "life begins at conception" for other reasons. Sure, the advance of science means that more and more premature births survive. But a few-day-old zygote - not even an embryo or foetus yet - cannot survive outside the womb. (Yeah, sure, they can be frozen, but it cannot be raised to birth outside the female.) That gives it the status of at best a passenger.

*My* personal view is that up until the foetus has a chance of survival on its own (i.e. after the second trimester) it does not qualify as separate life, and it is the mother's decision.

I don't know if the "morning after pill" qualifies as abortion - because fertilisation/implantation is only a potentiality. I agree that it should probably not be taken as lightly as "birth control" of a barrier method or other. (For many reasons, not just moral.) None of these things are light decisions and should not be taken as such. But just because something is not a light decision, does not mean that the responsibility for that decision should be taken away from the person who is most going to be affected by it - the mother.

Mine too.

Miscarriages (aka spontaneous abortions) occur naturally as well. If you use the above argument, then any abortion is just as moral (or immoral).

but i think this would apply to abortion too

FWIW, I've take the morning after pill 3 times and had an old-fashioned D&C abortion. Had no physical or mental problems with the morning after pill (or the abortion for that matter).

Vonda, I've taken the morning after pill twice. It made me violently ill on both occaisions. If you want to draw a distinction between abortion and the morning after pill, a good way to do that might be mechanism. Emergency contraception is a high dose of hormones (some brands of birth control pills can be taken for the same effect if you happen to have them on hand http://ec.princeton.edu/info/combecp.html). It acts upon your body only, making it an un-zygote-friendly place. Traditional abortions and RU-486 are both different in that they act directly upon the foetus/embryo. RU-486 is, i believe, a steroid which renders it unviable. A d&c is equally direct. So no, I'd tend to think that emergency contraception is qualitatively different from abortion.

I don't know if I'm any closer to deciding when I think human life begins. I'm having difficulty accepting the viability (ie the ability to survive outside of the womb) argument. How does the child's inability to survive outside of its mother mean that it isn't a person? Sometimes babies are born after a full nine-month pregnancy, but still need the help of machines for an extended period of time to stay alive. Are those babies not people? Would they be okay to kill?

My brain is sore. I'm going to bed.

Cf 'Legally Blonde' -- having a wank = a kind of abortion.

But then again, the Ancient Greeks thought lots of odd things, so really, let's not go there.

Isn't that a prerequisite?

If women banded together in a scientific effort to achieve human cloning, within 50 years there would be no biological use for men whatsoever. In 150 years or so there would be no men at all. Why aren't women doing this? Why keep us around?

Cos girls like... < /not up to this comment>

Also: what's the biological use of humanity at all, cochese?

Absolutely, and about time more men understand the fact. Tis a good thing to discuss the possiblity of getting pregnant before the actual event (and that more men appear to be doing it). In the end, the woman really does have final say: my eyebrow always arches higher when the guy says "This is/would be our baby." Would it still be "ours" when she begins to get larger and the nausea begins? After all, his physique does not change much (if at all).

(xpost)

Nicole Graham, why does your eyebrow arch higher in such a situation? Is the guy stupid for thinking that the baby is his too? Didn't his sperm help create the baby? Does the baby cease to be his while it is inside the woman? After birth, does the man have the right to claim the baby as "ours"? Why? Why not?

(I'm assuming a relatively "healthy" relationship. If the pregnancy is a result of rape or if the man abandons the woman during the pregnancy, then of course he has no claim to the child whatsoever)

also, "Twinkie"? Me not understand.

Name Bosko Balaban
Team Aston Villa
Total Appearances 0
Starts 0
Substituted 0
Total Minutes Played 0
Avg Minutes Played Per Start 0
Goals 0
Avg Goal Mins When Starting 0.0
Avg Mins Played/Goal Scored 0
Goals Scored As Sub 0
Number of Bookings 0
Total Booking Minutes 0
Avg Bookings Per Start 0
Number of Red Cards 0
Total Red Card Minutes 0
Avg Red Cards Per Start 0