On further review, I guess it depends. The French drug - RU something or other - is not a birth control pill and is often called a 'morning after' pill. The real 'morning after' pill may be contraception, but I think it is effective for more than 24 hours afterwards. Not sure whether that would be considered an abortificant or not.

RU 486 is different then the high dose contraception referred to as the morning after pill.

My opinion doesn't really matter, it should be a scientific definition of life which should matter, but my own personal beliefs is that life begins at conception.

Would I call it murder? No, I would call it an abortion, which some view as the same thing. The evil intent is not present, however, after a certain amount of time in the womb - like a time when if the baby was out of the womb it could possibly live - I think it could be considered murder. Under our current laws it is not murder though, and laws define murder, not individuals.

Well this a forum for opinions. Conception is when the chromosomes join before implantation. Some believe stopping this implantation is murder.

My belief is that this is when life begins-just that begins-yet the life is not formed. Those who see the moment of conception as human life would then see birth control that prevents implantation as abortion or some would see it as murder.

I am not clear what all the posters opinions are on this one.

So you think it is acceptable up until about 22- 23 weeks.

I am not clear on my own position on this except I do believe in the morning after pill and it is readily available where I work.

I would not favor an abortion unless having the baby would seriously endanger the mother's life.

Federal law says a pregnancy begins at implantation. So technically, according to the legal definition of when a pregnancy starts, something that prevents implantation would not be considered an abortificiant . . . . . right?

Do you know the difference between the term contraceptive, and abortifacient? Birth control pills are both a contraceptive, and an abortifacient. I have no problem at all with the contraceptive action of birth control pills, it is the abortifacient qualities that I don't like. A pill that prevents ovulation is fine in that it is a contraceptive. When a pill does not prevent ovulation, then fertilization can happen and a secondary effect of the pill is that it prevents implantation and that is abortion.

You seem to be confused on the issue. In the statement above, you say that birth control pills are contraception as if that is their only action, but earlier you admit that birth control pills do have an abortifacient action as well when you said in post # 62:

"And palerider since your obviously confused about the fact birth control pills do cause abortions. "

So which is it?

I am not dodging anything peach. The dodger around here is you. I answer whatever questions are put to me honestly, and you answer none. You ramble on and on and on as if you believe by constantly talking (whether on topic or not) you are relieved of the responsibility of upholding your end of the conversation.


No women in my family (that I know of) are taking birth control pills. Of course, I haven't entered into all of their homes and searched. I have one daughter and according to her conversations with my wife, she is not using birth control pills precisely because of the abortifacient effect.


No. We decided to have two children. When our second was born healthy, my wife had her tubes tied before she left the hospital, and I had a vasectomy.


Since we never used the pill, the question is irrelavent.


My daughter knows that birth control pills have an abortifacient effect if they fail to prevent ovulation so she, being pro life, would not consider their use.

My son is a medical student (veteranary) and is also perfectly aware of the abortifacient qualities of birth control pills. He is single at this time so the quiestion is moot in his case as well.

My daughter is a professional. She finished her degree and had a job before she got married and she married a professional. My son has 3 semesters to go before beginning his internship as a veteranarian so he should do well for himself also. If they find that they are unable to feed their children, however, I would not hesitate to help them out.

I am humoring you, but this whole line of questions are based on a logical fallacy wvpeach. They are based on a fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem. It doesn't matter what I do, or what my family does, the fact remains that abortion kills a living human being. If every woman in my family ate birth controls for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and birth control pills for snacks 3 times a day, abortion still kills a living human being. At best, you might prove that I was a hypocrite, but that doesn't make your argument any more sound.

Probably not. I am in my 60's and one should not take on the responsibility of an raising a child lightly. At 6-, there is every possibility that I wouldn't live until the child was an independent adult. That would constitute selfishness on my part without regard for what the child needs. Of course, that doesn't change a thing. Once more, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.

Aside from that, if birth control pills (in their present form) are outlawed, there would be a profit motive for pharm companies to develop a birth control pill that does nothing but prevent ovulation. Presently, there is no profit motive to produce such a pill.


I have already answered.


I have answered all your questions,and you are not the queen of this conversation. It is about time that you either answer some of my questions or admit that you are nothing more than a liar.

You made the claim that my argument was emotional. I have asked you which part of my argument was an appeal to emotion. Thus far, you have dodged the question entirely. Bring forward any point that I have made that is an appeal to emotion.

At this point, I have provided plenty of credible science that states explicitly that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. Do you have any credible science that says otherwise?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Did you notice that I gave you the title, the edition, and the page of the book? You are free to go to your nearest medical university and read the entire book if you like. The passage I quoted was the relavent passage. I was pointing out that there was no such thing as a fertilized egg. I could have quoted the entire book, but that one passage would have been the relavent information.

Perhaps if you shut up long enough to actually read what others are saying, you would not have missed it. Are you seriously saying that you haven't seen any of the other information I have posted to prove that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Quote:
Originally Posted by wvpeach
Are you willing to pay more in taxes to feed all those added babies once the birth control pill I outlawed ?


I have already answered.Quote: Palerider


If I remember right I asked you a similar question and you said "you pay enough taxes already".. Well so do the rest of us and if you get your way we'll be paying even more.

I think those of you that keep pushing for these laws to control womans rights should take these babies into your own homes and raise them. That's the only "morally right" thing you can do after imposing your will on women.
Either put up or shut up is the best way to put it.

Actually the point is that all of us are paying for your actions Pale. That takes money away from kids that are already here. You have a twisted conception of how the world revolves.

I am not catholic, and my objection to abortion has nothing to do with religion.

Is it obvious? Of course it isn't. That is an assumption on your part that is not based in any sort of clear and reasonable logic. If you look at the demographics from the time you refer to, you will find that most very large familes were those who operated farms. Having a large number of children not only reduced labor costs, but was a means of passing the farm from generation to generation.

Very large families were not the norm for people who did not live on the land. That isn't to say that there weren't large families in cities, but those were not the norm.

Simply assuming that people will be having a dozen kids because birth control pills in their present formulation aren't available is not a rational argument. If you are going to pose such a senario, then you are going to have to logically prove it. Simply stating it isn't sufficient.

Exactly how long do you believe it will take pharm companies to develop a pill that only prevents ovulation? My bet is that such a formula already exists but there exists no profit motive to produce it.

Once again, you are a liar. Or too stupid to read. Or so busy talking that you don't have time to read what others are writing. Which is it. I have stated explictly why I am opposed to abortion.


If you shut up long enough to read the comments of other people, you would realize that there are a number of reasons to oppose abortion that are not religious in nature. Are you prepared to have a conversation, or do you believe that simply bloviating endlessly constitutes conversation on your part?

Perhaps in your very narrow field of view it all boils down to religion, but that is your failing, not mine. A great many people have objections to abortion that have nothing at all to do with religion. If your blinders prevent you from seeing this, then perhaps you should take them off for the purpose of this conversation.

That would depend entirely on what any individual athiest believes with regard to human rights. Suggesting that athiests are universally pro choice is not a valid statement, because you can't prove it. It is a baseless assumption. It is a logical fallacy.

If you can offer some credible proof that athiests are unversally pro choice, then feel free to make the argument. Although what athiest do or don't believe, in reality, has nothing to do with the reasons I oppose abortion. My opposition to abortion is not based on what I believe, it is based on what I know.

[/quote]

Who ever said that I was an athiest? More assumptions on your part. You seem to assume a great deal. Is that because you actually know very litte?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma