Morning after pill as Abortion???

So wat do u guyz think about it? Personally i think that it is a form of abortion.

Abortion or no, I am very thankful for its availability. I know my girlfriend is too.

I dont believe in abortion. I think it is the same as murder!!!! As for the pill, It is good in certan cases. Such as a rape victom.. Other than that, it is wrong.

^listen to that woman!

If the "morning after pill" is abortion so is a condom or regular birth control pills.


For all you followers of the pope and the church sex is only for the sole reason of having children. That is why they are against abortion and birth control, We would have no need for condoms, pills,shots or abortion if you practiced what you were taught in church.

I am against abortion when it concerns my wife. I can care less what others do with their bodies because it doesn't concern me. If my kids grow up, move out they can get abortions as long as I don't have to pay for it or suffer from it. We have no right to force our will on others.

I dont believe in abortion. I think it is the same as murder!!!! As for the pill, It is good in certan cases. Such as a rape victom.. Other than that, it is wrong.

Translation: murder (your definition, not mine) is ok in certain cases. Ridiculous statement. It's either wrong or it's not, you can't have it both ways.

Personally, I think the religious fanatics can have all the rape babies, incest babies, unwanted pregnancies etc. they would like. As for me, I cherish the opportunities provided to prevent and correct these mistakes for the good of the parents and the child. And mishap pregnancies aside, I will never be made to feel that sex devoid of the intention to simply reproduce is dirty and/or wrong. Sex is not a sin, it's a gift. Thank god for contraceptives, instead.

^Amen to that.

The thing is, the day after pill is more a form of birth control than abortion because sometimes ur not technically sure if a girl is pregnant or not. It's just the risk is extremely high.

So now just argue about contrception and see where u wind up.

I don't think the morning after pill is an abortion.

I posed the question long ago for the forum members here who wish they were aborted. No takers so far.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I dont believe in abortion. I think it is the same as murder!!!! As for the pill, It is good in certan cases. Such as a rape victom.. Other than that, it is wrong.

So if a young couple has sex and the condom breaks, would it be more ethical (I assume you are arguing on the basis of ethics) to take the EC pill and eliminate the possibility of pregnancy (like Damien said, there is no way of knowing if she is pregnant yet), or to not take any pill, find out she is pregnant, not have an abortion, and have two 16 year olds making a thousand dollars a month between them try and raise a baby?

What if the parents kick them both out?

Is it more acceptable to ruin two young lives that already exist, than to prevent the possibility of a third? Is it ok to create life long burdens and baggage for two kids who were unlucky enough to be in the 2% of condom breaks, but its not ok to take a pill which will most likely prevent pregnacy in the first place?

What if one of them is very stubborn and refuses to give up their child to adoption?

There is no financial burden like raising a child. And it becomes tenfold when both kids may make little more than minimum wage.

What if the girl becomes very ill, or even dies during birth?

Is the life of an established girl who simply was involved in an accident less valuable than a "life" that doesn't even exist yet? Like Damien said, morning after prevents pregnancy, it does not abort anything.

It is easy to say "down with abortion" or "morning after pills are immoral" but until you yourself are faced with a situation where a morning after pill is the difference between financial burden and mental anguish, and a feeling of "crisis averted", you can not speak on the issue fairly.

Its like asking the question, what would you do if someone wielding a gun burst into your house right now? Its easy to say "I'd kick his ass" or "Id run out the back door", but you don't know for sure. If you and your 16 or 17 girlfriend/boyfriend are playing it safe, using all necessary protection, and you are unlucky enough to be in that 2% where the condom breaks, can you honestly say "I am opposed to the EC pill and abortions, so despite the unspeakable burden this will force on my life, I will have this child?

To me, the second the spermatid enters the egg, you have a baby. Anything done after that time is abortion. The morning after pill then would be an abortion. And abortion is murder, I dont care if it was a rape or what. If you dont want to raise the kid put it up for adoption. Its really easy to find especially if you do it before the kid is even born.

Basically I say do whatever it takes to stay protected during sex. Have the girl take the pill and have the guy put on a condom and still pull out. If you have a kid through that much precaution then damn, thats luck.

For all you followers of the pope and the church sex is only for the sole reason of having children.

Wrong. The Bible says that sex is a gift from God for the man and wife to satisfy each other. It even says that one of the roles of the wife is to sexually satisfy her husband in the bonds of marriage.

The idea of emergency contraception—or a morning-after pill—is based on a theory. Under this theory, if a woman has sexual intercourse and fears she may be pregnant, she can take large doses of birth control pills. If in fact the woman is pregnant when she takes these birth control pills, the high dosage could act to kill her preborn child—a living human being. The only "emergency" in this case is the woman's fear of being pregnant.

Here are some of the side effects:

nausea
vomiting
infertility
breast tenderness
ectopic pregnancy (can be life threatening)
blood clot formation

http://www.morningafterpill.org/mapinfo1.htm

If the "morning after pill" is abortion so is a condom or regular birth control pills.
Condoms and birth control pills don't DELETE a fertilized egg. They PREVENT conception.

For those who think it is the religious fanatics feel sex is just for making babies...if that were so...God would have made sex less fun. We could just swap ear wax with q tips or something.

I have a question for someone with a more intimate knowledge of the Bible than I. I was under the impression that, according to the Bible, spilling one's seed without the intention of making a child was a sin. Is this accurate? Therefore casual sex, masturbation and the like are sinful. So, if true, how is contraception of any kind under any circumstances acceptable?

To me, the second the spermatid enters the egg, you have a baby. Anything done after that time is abortion. The morning after pill then would be an abortion. And abortion is murder, I dont care if it was a rape or what. If you dont want to raise the kid put it up for adoption. Its really easy to find especially if you do it before the kid is even born.

Basically I say do whatever it takes to stay protected during sex. Have the girl take the pill and have the guy put on a condom and still pull out. If you have a kid through that much precaution then damn, thats luck.

Do you really think that a woman who was raped would want a child from that? I can't speak for the women on the page; however, i can't see any woman who was raped say "Oh, I just hope I’m going to have a child."

I don't think abortion should be illegal. I don't. It should be a last resort for people. But to just not have it, that’s a bad idea. Because to think that making it illegal is going to stop it, is well, stupid. It will still occur only now it will be in back allies

Abortion is definetley wrong. Everybody is aware that sex could lead to pregnancy. To be like "Crap the condom broke pass me some morning after pills" is just plain irresponsible. It's not fair to kill a baby because you had bad judgement.
But, I do think there is an exception for rape victims. In these cases, since both people didn't consent then both weren't willing to accept the consequences.

I have a question for someone with a more intimate knowledge of the Bible than I. I was under the impression that, according to the Bible, spilling one's seed without the intention of making a child was a sin. Is this accurate? Therefore casual sex, masturbation and the like are sinful. So, if true, how is contraception of any kind under any circumstances acceptable?

Religously, it's not. SHouldn't even be having sex at all, but we're human so, we're faced then with the next problem. If I'm going to defy what I believe, what's the safest way to do it? But that's not what we're talking about.

EDIT: Let me add in something b4 someone gets me here. Now, if a man and woman are married and still use contraception, techncially it's a sin, but then again so are about a millin and one other things. According to the Bible we should try and listen to Vulcans, live long and prosper, but that was back in the day when there weren't billions of people living on earth. So, from there, it's interpret what ya want.

The Bible is a huge lie, the biggest lie humanity has ever seen, and before anybody thinks otherwise, I believe in a God, just not the ones that HUMAN religion would have you swallow. What that means belongs in another, more than likely VERY long post.

Anyhow.

From a practical standpoint, you are doing nothing more than killing two cells. Millions die off our bodies from sloughing off our epidermis everyday.

From a moral standpoint, the only immoral thing happening is people sticking their noses in other people's bedrooms, where no crime has been committed, or no attention has been called to.

For those of you that are calling the cells "human", you kill more organisms than you would know by cooking. Should you take out, and kill a tumor, which is essentially billions of (mutated) human cells?

Abortion, of a fetus, with a forming brain...that is one thing, and I do not agree with that. But c'mon...two cells, both of which would have died off anyhow, if the parties never had sex...with one of them being discarded in blood, like a parasite?

Some of you take it too far.

I have a question for someone with a more intimate knowledge of the Bible than I. I was under the impression that, according to the Bible, spilling one's seed without the intention of making a child was a sin. Is this accurate?

Nope it's perfectly alright as long as you're in the laws of marriage to have sex.

Therefore casual sex, masturbation and the like are sinful. So, if true, how is contraception of any kind under any circumstances acceptable?

I'm not Catholic so I don't believe this. Where I go it's alright to use a condom or pill because you're not wanting a pregnancy. Instead you're just wanting to have fun with your man or wife.


Abortion, of a fetus, with a forming brain...that is one thing, and I do not agree with that. But c'mon...two cells, both of which would have died off anyhow, if the parties never had sex...with one of them being discarded in blood, like a parasite?

Some of you take it too far.

I guess you've never taken a biology class so I'll fill in the blanks for you. A sperm and egg are both incomplete with only part of the human DNA code. By themselves neither of them have what it takes to form a full human being.
It's like cutting some skin off of you. Your body has what it takes to grow back new skin. The cut off skin doesn't have what it takes to grow back a new you.

The second though they fuse together life is formed. Even though it might be "a couple of cells" it's a human. Those two cells now have the entire DNA code of you. Even though it's just two cells they tell that this person will have green eyes, blonde hair, female, she'll stand 5'4, will like to go shopping on the weekends, and will have a taste for James Bond movies. That is all there and ready to go. The only step left is the grow this human in the female.

I guess you've never taken a biology class so I'll fill in the blanks for you. A sperm and egg are both incomplete with only part of the human DNA code. By themselves neither of them have what it takes to form a full human being.
It's like cutting some skin off of you. Your body has what it takes to grow back new skin. The cut off skin doesn't have what it takes to grow back a new you.

The second though they fuse together life is formed. Even though it might be "a couple of cells" it's a human. Those two cells now have the entire DNA code of you. Even though it's just two cells they tell that this person will have green eyes, blonde hair, female, she'll stand 5'4, will like to go shopping on the weekends, and will have a taste for James Bond movies. That is all there and ready to go. The only step left is the grow this human in the female.

So what? The skin cells that slough off your skin also contain your full DNA code. So does that hair that come off your body. So does the toenail you clip. So what?

You talk about regeneration, and the generation that eventually occurs with the newly-joined cells. There is a MAJOR difference. When your skin grows back, there is no need to draw from another, ACTUAL human being. For the cells to develop, it NEEDS the human it is in. At this stage, it is no better than the aforementioned tumor or skin cell, drawing off sustenance from the host body.

It will still be doing the same for many months afterwards, but there is a point where it develops the beginnings of a brain - when neurons start to form, and the semblance of a separate thought flickers. THEN it is human. THEN it is wrong.

Don't you get it? It is our consciousness that makes us human. A brain-dead body is just that, a body.

Do you call chimpanzees, who carry 98% of the DNA we carry "98% percent humanoids" or do you call them what they are?

Toenail clippings, hair and skin do NOT have the slightest potential to grow up to be a human being, so that argument is invalid.

The discussion here is whether or not the morning after pill is abortion. It either prevents or delays ovulation - neither of which is abortion, or prevents implantation of the blastocyst. Since people will never agree whether or not the blastocyst is human or not, it can't be answered whether or not that is abortion.

Until such a time that ovulation can be precisely determined, it will remain in doubt whether or not the morning after pill stops/delays ovulation or causes the ejection of the blastocyst in each case.

So there is an ethical choice to be made by each person that considers taking the morning after pill - to decide whether they think they could be killing a person or ejecting a clump of cells.

And it's not up to anyone except the person making the consideration.

Toenail clippings, hair and skin do NOT have the slightest potential to grow up to be a human being.

And neither does the fertilized cell, outside of the host. I was thinking more along the lines of the fact that with the cloning technology that is advancing upon us, DNA strands from toenails, and dead skin, and especially hair, can eventually be used to pattern another human.

Good point on the cloning, and a whole new level of ethics there.

Now the fertilized cell is in a specific environment for which it's adapted. If removed from that environment, it will die. I believe we agree there.

If a fish is removed from the water, it will die, having been removed from the environment it is adapted to.

People, removed from the environment of the earth they've become adapted to, die. Easily seen with exposure to weather or extreme altitudes.

You can see where I'm leading; removing a fetus forcibly from its environment too soon, and you are killing it.

Agreed?

You can see where I'm leading; removing a fetus forcibly from its environment too soon, and you are killing it.

Agreed?

Fetus, I wholeheartedly agree. Newly-fertilized cell, no.

OK cool. At what point to you consider it to be more than a mass of cells and abortion wrong? From your earlier post it seems that once brain matter starts to form?

^See, the problem is the decision as to where exactly does life began? When can we call it life and when can we call it, cells? (for lack of a better term)

Is it the second it has definition (DNA) or a brain or perhaps a heart. What about a soul??? Do to the fact no one will ever come to agree on any one term, this subject will for awhile be debated until someone throws in some kind of agreement that the public disagrees with, whether they admit it or not, and that the gov't is relieved that they have a definition to life.

^See, the problem is the decision as to where exactly does life began? When can we call it life and when can we call it, cells? (for lack of a better term)

Is it the second it has definition (DNA) or a brain or perhaps a heart. What about a soul??? Do to the fact no one will ever come to agree on any one term, this subject will for awhile be debated until someone throws in some kind of agreement that the public disagrees with, whether they admit it or not, and that the gov't is relieved that they have a definition to life.

And THAT is why each person considering a course of action must make their own personal ethical decision.

And THAT is why each person considering a course of action must make their own personal ethical decision.

Agreed.

How many of you in here arguing against the EC Pill have actually been faced wih a situation where it would be needed?

And did anyone even read my earlier post?

The Bible is a huge lie, the biggest lie humanity has ever seen, and before anybody thinks otherwise, I believe in a God, just not the ones that HUMAN religion would have you swallow. What that means belongs in another, more than likely VERY long post.

I would love to hear your logic and reasoning behind this. So please post a topic on it. I am not knocking you just wondering what you believe.

Agreed.

How many of you in here arguing against the EC Pill have actually been faced wih a situation where it would be needed?

And did anyone even read my earlier post?

Probably not many.

I did, and since it seems you may have been in that situation, you are uniquely qualified to comment. Everyone else is blowing smoke.

Agreed.

How many of you in here arguing against the EC Pill have actually been faced wih a situation where it would be needed?

And did anyone even read my earlier post?

Ya got a point and I remember someone pinnning me for it. But that was about abortion in general and I never tell my whole story so they had nothing on me. The thing is, that's nice and all, whether u r or been in that postition, but I still stand with what i say.

I'd use contrception, but no morning after pill. At leats, I'd hope she wouldn't use it. Preventing life is diffferent from destroying it. Just like gay marriages and abortion in general. I believe both should be alloweed, but I totally disagree and would never have an abortion. And, I;m not gay so obviously I won;t get married.

BUt as a citizen of America, I believe that such a right should be issued and if the Morning afetr pill ever faces such an issue as an early form of abortion, then heck, I'll support the fact it ain't just 'cause people should have that right.

Fredjackson summed up after me perfectly.

Idk, I'm in a thinking mood. Damn finals. My :2cents: or more actually.

:rofl: Yeah, good point. Just let people make their own decision, no need to legislate everything.

Agreed.

How many of you in here arguing against the EC Pill have actually been faced wih a situation where it would be needed?

And did anyone even read my earlier post?



Yes I have been in that situation before. Back when I was 15 I was raped. As far as the pill, I dont think it was around back then. I may have used it if it was offered. But I dont think it was. luckley I did not need it. I would never use it under any other situation. I believe it to be murder. I guess that makes me a hipacrit but I dont care.

Just let people make their own decision, no need to legislate everything.
There is already a law against murder. Should people be allowed to make their own decisions about murder?

Bagwan, I agree that it could be murder; however after all the discussion both here and elsewhere about when the fetus becomes human, or "a" human (etc) it is easy to see that people will never agree when human life begins.

I think the government's place is to allow things that are safe for their people. It is up to the individual to make their own moral decisions. No government should attempt to legislate morality for the citizens of that country.

i think if two people are not fit to have a baby, and have no means to care, or support the baby, i think they should be able to make their own decision. i dont think of an abortion as a murder. if the baby was born into this world and then u killed it, thats a different story, but a morning after pill?come on now.ive seen kids whos parents cant take care of themselves, nevermind a child. the kids are the ones that suffer the most. :2cents:

Yeah, thats more work for social workers technically. Would u rather a child be born into poverty and a terrible life perhaps dying a a young age anyhow or just to not be born at all and simple by doing it before there's a chance for anything to develop. It now becomes and ethical and social dilema.

If you think that the morning afterpill is murder then so is masturbation, swallowing etc..

If you think that the morning afterpill is murder then so is masturbation, swallowing etc..

Not really because the sperm and egg are incomplete. Only when they are joined they are completed and are able to make a human. A sperm or an egg alone doesn't have what it takes and needs the other.

Not really because the sperm and egg are incomplete. Only when they are joined they are completed and are able to make a human. A sperm or an egg alone doesn't have what it takes and needs the other.
There aint a lot of logic here, muscles. They aint gonna understand you. You are being too logical. You are over their heads.

I dont believe in abortion. I think it is the same as murder!!!! As for the pill, It is good in certan cases. Such as a rape victom.. Other than that, it is wrong.

I agree with u...in certain cases, the pill can help a rape victim because of the severity of it. I also believe abortion is murder in my view due to my religious lifestyle.

Sorry PnoiSR20, but it seems you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you're saying abortion via the pill is ok in the instance of rape, and then you say that abortion is murder. Are you saying it's ok to murder the fetus when that innocent child was conceived during a rape?

In the case of rape it is ok. When I was in that situation I would not have wanted to be a parent at that young of age. And when I speek of abortion I mean like a while into the pregnecy. A few days into it , it is only a cell. I would never abort at any stage. Thats just me. I have probaly made no since.

I just want to know when we will be able to abort people who are already born, like a neighbor i used to have, i wouldnt have minded aborting him.

I just want to know when we will be able to abort people who are already born, like a neighbor i used to have, i wouldnt have minded aborting him.
Call James Bond.

Hey fredjacksonsan....i guess i can say that im being a little bit of a hypocrite. I do think that abortion is murder....and that the morning after pill (MAP) is beneficial to a rape victim. Im not trying to play devils advocate here, but yes fredjacksonsan....im sorry if im contradicting my statement.

:) Actually, pnoiSR20 your feelings are at the heart of the whole abortion debate; the conflict within each person or group of people over which are ok and which are not.

The decision to carry a rapist's baby or abort it has to be one of the toughest anyone could have to make.

Here is another arguement for the abortion debate: The Democrats believe that the abortion debate is about the woman's choice to have one. This is their belief. So do u think that woman should have that right? Because to me....woman having that right are literally killing their kids. Thats just morally wrong.

http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortion-poster3.html

try this link...this might help u folks change ur mind if u think abortion is alright. (i think i fucked up the link) but just copy and paste it.

I wonder how many peoples' minds will be open enough to view that website and comment.

Yeah i kno.

I'm sorry... but "the morning after" the fish are still swimming upstream! nothin's happened yet! you should probably do something that will save more "abortions" like making masturbation illegal...

VOTE 1 for NO SPERM WASTAGE!

TRD, I agree that in most (many?) cases, the swimmers are still a-swimmin' on the morning after. Human eggs are often fertilized in the fallopian tubes and it takes awhile for the sperm to get there.

I think the debate comes in when the "morning after" pill is taken several days after the sexual encounter.

There also seems to be a couple different products out there. RU-486, and this stuff:

http://www.go2planb.com/section/about/index.html

They're quite different stuff.

After reading the article, RU-486 is abortion, while this pill most likely isn't.

yeah there are chemical abortion pills that can be taken a fair while later.

regardless i think that abortion should be allowed. but i don't see the morning after as abortion... i see it as evasive contraception. like if your condom breaks.

Yeah, thats more work for social workers technically. Would u rather a child be born into poverty and a terrible life perhaps dying a a young age anyhow or just to not be born at all and simple by doing it before there's a chance for anything to develop. It now becomes and ethical and social dilema.

That's the biggest pile of :bs: I've heard. We're doing the child a favor now? Yeah and I'm sure the Germans were doing the Jews a favor by not letting them live in a Nazi controled country.

http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortion-poster3.html

I think all women and pro-choice people should view all of those pictures.

hmm saying it represents an ethical and social dilemma is :bs: when it's pretty clear that it is definately a social dilemma, and for those of us who have taken the time to view both sides it is clearly an ethical dilemma also...

take the time to think :twak: :loser:

I think all women and pro-choice people should view all of those pictures....And I'd like the anti-abortion movement people who supported the governments responsible to be able to see the picture described in the quote below....

BTW, DU = depleted uranium - the biggest abortion pill ever that doesn't merely kill the unborn, but also produces self-terminating babies.

It's cheap too - can't give the stuff away - have to pay people to take it.

Oh, and one dose lasts a lifetime - actually, thousands of lifetimes.

The powers that be learned one lesson from Vietnam. No more images......

......To move us toward that knowledge let me end with the forbidden, which I must here try to convey solely through the more abstract medium of words since I’ve not yet gained permission to reproduce a photograph I saw a week ago. It’s the picture of an Iraqi baby, a victim of DU, who was born with no nose, mouth, eyes, anus or genitals and with flipper limbs, a common result of radiation exposure in utero. That child’s body, full of red open ulcers, is twisted in knots, its ulcerated face contorted in a look of unspeakable suffering. An authentic image of the sacredness of human life. Of the preciousness of every breath. To look at that child is to realize one’s duty to mourn it, to give voice to its right to invade our consciousness and expose the evil of those who prate on about the right to life while refusing to let us see what they’ve reduced life to. Luke, 17:1-2. The image of that child must become the force in our minds that enables us to deracinate all guarantees that would protect us from the reality of that child’s situation. Or, to put it another way, every time one chooses catharsis, resolution, and renewal that child is born again, condemned to an unspeakable suffering.


Source: http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/892_0_15_0_C33/

How's that for an ethical and social dilemma.

Now, conveniently forget about it and go back to arguing about your little pill.

...And I'd like the anti-abortion movement people who supported the governments responsible to be able to see the picture described in the quote below....

BTW, DU = depleted uranium - the biggest abortion pill ever that doesn't merely kill the unborn, but also produces self-terminating babies.

It's cheap too - can't give the stuff away - have to pay people to take it.

Oh, and one dose lasts a lifetime - actually, thousands of lifetimes.



Source: http://www.world-crisis.com/analysis_comments/892_0_15_0_C33/

How's that for an ethical and social dilemma.

Now, conveniently forget about it and go back to arguing about your little pill.



Hard to forget, T4. DU, while effective at its job of penetrating armor, does have horrible, lasting effects when it is left lying around. Another example of the government not thinking things through fully and only seeing the short view.

Some pro-abortion critics say "well how do you know that she is already pregnant?" They also say,"Well its not a baby until it fully leaves the womb." So when the baby is like 6-8 months old, a special type of abortion ( i forgot the name) is made. They basically give a woman a pill...that makes her conceive it. The doctors make the legs and the body come out first. While the head is still in there, they get this kind of vaccum like thingy and suck in the inner brain of the baby's skull while the baby's head is still inside. Thus the cranial cavity falls aborting the baby.

The issue is basically if woman have the right to abort the baby. Its just retarded. I mean...the woman that do this dont have a sense of guilt or remorse to killing their own child.

6-8months is a lot different to the first few days.

agree completely abortion is completely wrong after that amount of time.