For or against abortion?

George O Well · #**151** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 10:20 AM

You're just not gettin' it, are you? Are you daft, or what?

PaleRider · #**152** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George O Well

You're just not gettin' it, are you? Are you daft, or what?

Oh I get it. You are completely unable to make the case that unborns are not human beings so in your frustration, you are trying to make the suggestion that science isn't qualified to say what is and is not a living member of a particular species.

Instead, you are making the asinine assertion that necromancers and gypsys who are never called upon to determine what species a creature is much less whether or not it is alive or not because they simply aren't qualified are the only ones qualified to make such a determination in the case of homo sapiens sapiens.

Make a real argument george or pack it up and move on. Or provide some credible evidence that suggests that philosophers and theologians are more qualified than biological scientists to determine what species a creature belongs to and whether or not it is alive.

We both know, however, that you aren't going to be able to do that so you will either leave or continue your mewling. Your argument is from a position of faith and not fact so it can never win against an argument that is substantiated by actual science.

mulp · #**153** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Those who use "birth control" pills with abortifacient properties might not be aware that they could be aborting their children and killing without intent is manslaugher. Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you offer up any credible evidence that killing an unborn at any stage is not killing a living human being and therefore prove that abortion or "birth control" methods with abortaficient properties does not deny a living human being the right to live?

See above

See above

See above.

I don't side step anything. I don't lie, I don't attempt to manipulate the facts, I don't misinform, and I don't try and trick people into believing what I believe by subterfuge.

And once more, you resort to your appeal to popularity argument. I have to say that if you are going to engage in a logical fallacy, you do it by the book.

I will agree with you in part that if abortion were banned, that it probably wouldn't be long before drug companies would have a perfect or nearly perfect contraceptive on the market. One that simply stops a woman from ovulating and has no abortifacient properties.

You aren't being honest about "your science" so let me quote "your scientific truth" to you:

Quote:

Q15 Does the intrauterine device (IUD) cause abortion?

Yes, the IUD does not prevent ovulation37 and works by changing the inner lining of a woman's uterus so that the newly conceived child cannot implant in the womb.

Q16 Do groups who favor abortion admit that BCPs and the IUD work by causing an early abortion?

The most ardent pro-abortion supporters openly admit the abortifacient nature of the BCP and the IUD. In his arguments before the Supreme Court in 1989, in the case of Webster versus Reproductive Health Services, Mr. Frank Susman, arguing for the pro-abortion side, spoke to Justice Anthony Scalia: "If I may suggest the reasons in response to your question, Justice Scalia. The most common forms of what we generally in common parlance call contraception today, IUD's, and low-dose birth control pills, which are the safest type of birth control pills available, act as abortifacients. They are correctly labeled as both."38

Q17 Do other hormonal "contraceptives" such as the long-acting progestins cause early abortions?

Norplant, manufactured by Wyeth-Ayerst, and Depo-Provera made by Pharmacia-Upjohn are made of artificial progestins. Norplant is composed of levonorgestrel and Depo-Provera of medroxyprogesterone. Depo-Provera is a long-acting progestin that is injected every three months intramuscularly. It is used worldwide despite the fact that animal and human studies have all shown that it increases the risk of breast cancer by at least 190% in women who took it for more than two years before the age of 25!39 Norplant is an artificial progestin that consists of a series of Silastic (rubber-like) strips which are filled with levonorgestrel and implanted under the skin of a woman's upper arm and slowly release the progestin into the woman's body over a five year time period. Norplant has been found to allow breakthrough ovulation in over 44% of a woman's monthly cycles.36 In addition, a study of rabbits conducted by Chang40 has shown that sperm freely reached the rabbit's fallopian tubes-even when the rabbits were given high doses of synthetic progestin. The combination of a high rate of breakthrough ovulation and documented sperm migration to the fallopian tubes in animals suggests that progestins such as Norplant and Depo-Provera allow a high rate of fertilization and subsequent abortion, most likely even higher than BCPs.

Q18 Does the "the morning after pill" cause an early abortion?

The "morning after pill" consists of a series of high dose BCPs that some women have taken one or two days after thinking that they have conceived. These high dose hormones act as an abortifacient by thinning the lining of the uterus, thus preventing the newly conceived child from implanting. The animal model described by Castro-Vazquez in 1971 demonstrated this effect in rats.41

Q19 Some emergency rooms give "hormones" to women who have recently been raped. Can this cause an early abortion?

The woman who comes to the emergency room within a few hours of being raped may or may not have already conceived. Some ER staff will give such a woman high dose estrogen and progestin hormones very similar to the "morning after pill." The exception is often found in Catholic hospitals whose physicians may not give the "post-rape pill." For the woman who is raped near the time of ovulation, the hormones may indeed stop ovulation and prevent conception. But if ovulation and conception have occurred, the hormones will work by causing an early abortion in the same way as has been described for "the morning after pill." Since there is no way to know whether conception has occurred, some physicians will not prescribe the "post-rape pill."

Q20 Does artificial fertilization cause early abortion(s)?

Every method of artificial fertilization that this author is aware of, whether it be in vitro fertilization or ZIFT (zygote intrafallopian transfer) or GIFT (Gamete intrafallopian transfer), involves the death of many unborn children during the process. Fewer than one out of 20 conceived children "survive" the process of in vitro fertilization. Even GIFT involves the exposure of more than one egg to multiple sperm - a situation in which multiple early abortions are extremely likely to occur. In addition to these methods, it is possible that women who take fertility pills such as Clomid ® (which work by causing the ovaries to "super-ovulate") may be experiencing early abortion(s). Some studies,42-45 but not all,46 indicate that this drug thins the lining of the uterus, theoretically making it more difficult for the conceived child(ren) to implant.

Q21 Can the estrogens that women take "after menopause" cause an early abortion?

Often women are started on estrogen replacement near the time of menopause. This usually has a beneficial effect of reducing the risk of osteoporosis, while increasing the risk of uterine and breast cancer. Unfortunately, many women are now starting estrogen replacement before they have completely stopped ovulating; that is, they are not always in true menopause but are still having occasional cycles. If a woman were to start estrogen at a time when she was having an occasional cycle, she could still conceive and have an early abortion. This is something to be aware of, and women who wish to avoid this effect should not start hormonal replacement therapy until they have not had a cycle for a one-year period.

Q22 Why was the term "contraceptive" placed in quotations when referring to the various artificial hormones?

Oral "contraceptives", Norplant, Depo-Provera, the IUD, the "morning after pill," and the "post-rape pill" all work by causing an early abortion at least part of the time. The word "contraceptive" was placed in quotations because all of the evidence points to these hormones or procedures as being abortifacients. That is, they cause an early abortion some of the time. Contraception technically means, "to prevent conception." Clearly, the hormones alluded to here cause the death of the preborn child after conception and cannot accurately be solely called "contraceptives."

Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Abortifacient Facts

So, your "scientific truth" "proves" that at least a billion women are murders and that hundreds of million women are annually murdering a billion human beings.

So, until you provide "scientific proof" that an embryo in a petri dish or frozen in liquid nitrogen or inside a woman isn't a human being, then you are stuck with claiming that most of the people of the world support killing human beings by the billions.

mulp · #**154** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

No human has a moral right to kill this life, except in the case where a woman needs to terminate the pregnacy due to a life threatening circumstance, other than that, God is the only one who can terminate the pregancy, and this would generally be a still-born birth.

so, you do support killing the "unborn."

To be consistent, you should hold that the woman must carry the "unborn" to term or die in the process, because only God gets to decide, and if the woman dies, then God is killing her, and man should not interfere with God's will.

mulp · #**155** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

The quote is from a medical textbook and is accompanied by a thorough bibliographical reference. The qote from the book is going to be the same no matter where you see it.

Which quote of the author of the web site did I use?

You cut and pasted aka plagerized the following webpage:
Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform | Fetal Development

Quote:

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."

Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."

Adding to the consensus of contemporary textbooks, is the testimony of older medical texts as well:
Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

In addition to the consistent testimony found in medical textbooks, there is some equally conclusive evidence that exists on the public record. In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."

Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."

Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."

Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter—the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.
This, of course, should come as no surprise since the American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. v. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” Doctors knew it during the 1800s and doctors know it today. Human life begins at conception.

If not from that webpage, then from some other webpage. It is inconcievable you could have independently written the identical text without cutting and pasting.

mulp · #**156** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

I disagree, because, like I said just before, once that egg starts to spilt and grow, its not the womans body anymore, it is a paracite, another being another life. No woman has the right, except under life threatening circumstances.

The world must seem to you to be an extremely evil place, especially the "Western world" given the billion women who have commited murder, and the billions of "unborn" killed in the name of birth control. But perhaps the rise of moral leaders like the Islamic fundamentalists who reject Western values gives you hope for the future.....

wolf_22 · #**157** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

Hey, by the definition Palerider and the like use, an easy billion women have had "abortions," 400 million at any point in time, and are actively engaging in a billion "abortions" a year. Most of the world call it birth control using a pill, an IUD, or an implant, or something similar.

that is so ridiculous!

most birth controls do stop ovulation. here is an easy way to figure it out- are you still getting your period?
if you said "no", your birth control is stopping or limiiting your ovulation.

I've heard the anti-choice crowd talk about birth control equating to abortions- and once again I disagree buit want them to be consistant.
we must also ban certain heart medications (if taken they can cause a miscarriage), lets limit anti-depressants because they cause both birth defects and miscarriages, and all the other medications which can "kill" or "harm" the "child"

mulp · #**158** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf_22

that is so ridiculous!

most birth controls do stop ovulation. here is an easy way to figure it out- are you still getting your period?
if you said "no", your birth control is stopping or limiiting your ovulation.

I've heard the anti-choice crowd talk about birth control equating to abortions- and once again I disagree buit want them to be consistant.
we must also ban certain heart medications (if taken they can cause a miscarriage), lets limit anti-depressants because they cause both birth defects and miscarriages, and all the other medications which can "kill" or "harm" the "child"

How do you know that such pills are always stopping ovulation with 100% certainty? The same hormones are used in Plan B, so maybe you had started ovulating prior to taking the pill or skipped a few days and then caught up?

Basically, just using birth control is all part of the pro-choice movement, and I doubt there is a single pro-choice adovate that wants to see a single abortion performed because of the hassle, costs, and even the minimal risks which are lower than carrying a pregnancy to term given equal healthcare quality.

Ultimately, it comes down to what is clearly a human being, aka person, according to the rule of law, which is the only place that society has for defining what is and isn't a person.

The society as a whole is overwhelming firmly in the belief that a person exists only after the first breath after being taken from the mother.

Certainly some want one definition to control women when it comes to making their actions illegal, but then want a different definition for all other legal and political purposes.

For example, I doubt that a single person would argue that merely fertilizing an egg by any means inside the US would result in a US citizen at that point. I'm sure Palerider would make that claim, for example.

PaleRider · #**159** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

You aren't being honest about "your science" so let me quote "your scientific truth" to you:

You really don't seem very bright. Do you have a problem reading words and understanding what they say? Let me see if I can explain what I said to you. Unfortunately, there isn't a crayon feature on this board, so I can't draw you a picture, but I will see if I can get down to your intellectual level.

I said:

"Those who use "birth control" pills with abortifacient properties might not be aware that they could be aborting their children and killing without intent is manslaugher. Murder is one human being killing another human being with intent. Can you offer up any credible evidence that killing an unborn at any stage is not killing a living human being and therefore prove that abortion or "birth control" methods with abortaficient properties does not deny a living human being the right to live?"

OK, are you ready? Lets see if we can get you to a point where you can understand what I wrote. In the first sentence (the one in red) I clearly state that if those who are using birth control pills (perhaps I should have said methods) that have abortifacient properties (that means they cause abortion) but aren't aware of the fact that they have abortifacient properties can't be commiting murder because murder is one human being killing another with intent. If they aren't aware of the abortifacient properties of their method of birth control, then by definition they are not commiting murder but are commiting manslaughter.

In the second sentence, I point out that murder is one human being killing another human being with intent in an effort to point out the difference between manslaugher and murder. Clearly, you didn't get it.

The rest is asking you to provide some evidence that unborns are not human beings. Do you understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

So, your "scientific truth" "proves" that at least a billion women are murders and that hundreds of million women are annually murdering a billion human beings.

Murder or manslaugher. Murder requires intent. If a woman uses a birth control method and is aware of an abortifacient quality, then what else could you possibly call one human being killing another with intent?

And what a truth proves is irrelavent to the fact that it is a truth. Again, you are making a logical fallacy in the assumption that because a great number of people do a thing that said thing becomes OK because of the numbers without regard to the facts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

So, until you provide "scientific proof" that an embryo in a petri dish or frozen in liquid nitrogen or inside a woman isn't a human being, then you are stuck with claiming that most of the people of the world support killing human beings by the billions.

When did I ever claim otherwise? As I said, those who aren't aware of the abortifacient qualities of their method of birth control aren't killing with intent so they would be guilty of manslaughter.

Am I going to have to explain every single thing that I say to you? If you have a reading impediment, just say so and I will take greater pains to try and explain what I am saying in simpler terms.

PaleRider · #**160** (**permalink**) 05-29-2008, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mulp

You cut and pasted aka plagerized the following webpage:

If not from that webpage, then from some other webpage. It is inconcievable you could have independently written the identical text without cutting and pasting.

First, I have never been to that web page until you provided a link. Second, how stupid are you exactly? Did you notice that those quotes are from medical textbooks? Do you believe that it is inconcievable that multiple sources quoting the same textbook would be using exactly the same words?

I spent a great deal of time in medical school libraries doing my own research, and I have read most of the books that have been referenced. And once again, you can not plagerize material if you reference the source.

If this is the best you have, then you have absolutely nothing. You clearly don't have a grasp of the science, your argument amounts to nothing more than a textbook example of a logical fallacy and you don't grasp that you can not be plagerizing material if you are referencing the source and in this case, the source is a medical textbook. Whoever wrote the web page didn't write the material from the medical textbooks, they simply copied it from them and provided a bibliographical reference exactly like I did. Geez but you are a dolt.