What is the POINT for abortion?

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by KustmAce

Why do some women abort?

They can't afford pregnacy.
They cant handle pregnacy during school/work.
They can't live with having a child only to put it up for adoption.

The reasons are endless. Its easy to criticize someone, but until you are faced with the same situation, everyone should mind their own damn business.

I know a lot of parents with teenagers that have the same type of problems.

Can't afford X
Can't handle their X
Can't live with them doing X

Perhaps a .45 to the head is in order.

[thrasher]

[quote=fredjacksonsan]

Regardless of whether or not responsibility is "taken on by consenting adults" or not, it exists. Your statement is akin to saying, "Well, I ran over that little old lady and killed her, but I choose not to take on the responsibility for driving safely, so that responsibility never existed. So therefore it's not my fault".

I don't get the analogy. Makes so sense. Of course you are at fault for running over the little old lady. Your negligence directly caused the death of a fully functioning and independent human being. Which a fetus is most certainly not. That woman already has the right to life as she is a functioning member of society.

BUT Can't say I agree here. If the child is born, then the adults that brought said child into the world have a responsibility of care. Now whether that care is to raise the child themselves or give it up for adoption is their decision, and theirs alone.
l

What you're saying is that conception implies responsibility to raise a fully functional and responsible human being. There needs to be a third event that connects the two, and that event is assumption of the responsibility by the parents (s). Until the parents have assumed responsibility of care, abortion is acceptable.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

What it comes down to, is the fact that a woman's body, and WHATEVER is a part of it, is her right to do with as she sees fit.

It's not her body though in any way shape or form. They share some of the same traits but the baby has a different DNA than the mother. If it was the same it'd be nothing more than a clone of the mother.

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Until the baby is able to survive on its own, WITHOUT reliance on the mother's body, it's no more than an extension of her own anatomy.

Oh really? Well the baby depends on the mother's milk and the mother to change, feed, ect months after it's out. So does this mean a 5 month old kid is a mother's extension of her anatomy?

Originally Posted by tenguzero

it's the mother's right (no matter how ignorant she is) to do what she feels is the best for her body.

It's not her body though it's somebody elses.

Originally Posted by thrasher

That woman already has the right to life as she is a functioning member of society.

Let's make it legal then for anybody who kills a 5 year old to get off free of charge. Obviously they aren't a functioning member of society so it's no big deal.

Originally Posted by thrasher

You're not responsible for the care of the child until you have assumed that responsibility. If you were having sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, then yes, you do have the responsibility. But if you were using protection and a pregnancy still occurred, you never assumed responsibility to care for the child. The responsibility NEVER exists until it is taken on by consenting adults. Period.

So if I go get into my car tonight drunk and crash into somebody's house I'm not responsible because I didn't assume that responsibility?

Isn't that great, a world without responsibility for our actions

Same thing buddy, you have sex, you take a risk like everybody else. As I said everybody knows that if you have sex, there is a chance a kid could come out of it.

It's the same thing as if you smoke a cigarette. You take a risk of getting lung cancer.

If you don't want the responsibility of dealing with lung cancer, don't smoke.
If you don't want the responsibility of dealing with a kid, don't have sex. It's really that simple.

Now this is where abortion comes in and people say it's ok because of it we are no longer responsible for our actions. I don't see it that way.

I think of it like this, the guy with lung cancer no longer has to be responsible for the actions he took. The only thing is he has to kill his father to get the lungs from him so he won't die.

[thrasher]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Let's make it legal then for anybody who kills a 5 year old to get off free of charge. Obviously they aren't a functioning member of society so it's no big deal.

So if I go get into my car tonight drunk and crash into somebody's house I'm not responsible because I didn't assume that responsibility?

Allow me to explain some simple philosopy to you. The right to life, as generally agreed upon in academia, is assumed between adult members of a society who agree upon a certain set of rules. Paramount among those rules is that you do not pose a threat to somebody else's life. Once you have done that, you no longer have a right to life. We have decided as a society (in the US) that people under the age of 18 are not able to legally agree to the rules. Hence, their parents assume the responsibility for their actions.

A fetus, obviously, is not able to assume responsibility for their own actions. Therefore, a parent assumes responsibility to care for that child until the age that they are able to be independent adults (18 in the US). Now like I said before, the action of having sex is not connected to the raising of a child. When using protection, the intention is that a child will not be conceived. If a child is conceived, the potential parents had not already made the decision to raise that child to an adult age. Therefore, they are free to abort the baby until the point that they have assumed responsibility for the child.

The analogy of killing someone with a car is ridiculous. There is no responsibility to assume. You violated a societal standard by putting in danger the life of someone else. That person has a right to life because they are under the care of an adult societal member. A fetus has no such right becuase they ARE NOT under the care of an adult societal member until said adult assumes care.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by thrasher

Now like I said before, the action of having sex is not connected to the raising of a child. When using protection, the intention is that a child will not be conceived. If a child is conceived, the potential parents had not already made the decision to raise that child to an adult age. Therefore, they are free to abort the baby until the point that they have assumed responsibility for the child.

I understand what you are saying, but really, isn't that a little bit silly? Your buying the condoms because you don't want a baby. Yes that is responsible thinking. But. You do know that condoms, pills, whathaveyou, are not full proof? What you are doing is realizing the odds with having a condom vs. not and making a decision based upon that. And if so be that you knock a girl up, what then? You mean to tell me you didn't know that wasn't possible? That since you used a condom it somehow negates the result, and thats your reason for it being acceptable? Man I sure hope that kind of justification worked at court.

"I know I was speeding, but my radar detector didn't work right.....so its not really my fault." Tell me what he is going to say to you? Busted. (haha, get it?).

Thats quiet naive now isnt it. But whatever floats your boat. If you need a set of guidlines thats up to you only.

Just to get a few things straight about my view on abortion: I'm not a crazy anti-abortion hoot. If a girl gets pregnant, and she wants to have an abortion or wants to have the baby, its not my choice, because its none of my business in the first place. (unless it is, then thats my choice, and none of your business)

[tenguzero]

It's not her body though in any way shape or form. They share some of the same traits but the baby has a different DNA than the mother. If it was the same it'd be nothing more than a clone of the mother.

I disagree with you there. Complications with the fetus can equal complications to the body that sustains it, therefore, it is a functioning part of the body. The argument is when, exactly, that part of the body potentially gains sentience. Different DNA does not mean functional human being.

Oh really? Well the baby depends on the mother's milk and the mother to change, feed, ect months after it's out. So does this mean a 5 month old kid is a mother's extension of her anatomy?

I fail to see how that relates to this discussion, as the child has already been born.

Let's make it legal then for anybody who kills a 5 year old to get off free of charge. Obviously they aren't a functioning member of society so it's no big deal.

You're obviously making very liberal use of the terms like "functioning member of society" to illustrate your case, but I don't see how it backs up the argument.

[Flatrater]

Posted by thrasher - 08-07-2005 at 07:04 PMMan oh man is that a fatal flaw in logic and reasoning. You're not responsible for the care of the child until you have assumed that responsibility. If you were having sex with the intention of becoming pregnant, then yes, you do have the responsibility. But if you were using protection and a pregnancy still occurred, you never assumed responsibility to care for the child. The responsibility NEVER exists until it is taken on by consenting adults. Period.

I see your flaw in logic. The second you decide to have sex you are accepting the outcome of that act. It's the same thing if I break the law knowing that I could get caught. I'm sure both parties know the possible result of a sex act could be a child. Wanted or not they are both aware of it. Consenting to sex is consenting to the ramifications to that act.

see, thing is, id like to be able to have sex without having to worry bout a kid. condoms break, pills dont work 100%, morning after pills are even more likely to fail, and pregnency just isnt an option at this point. why cant i have sex without having to worry about a kid?

It's fine if you want to have sex but you have to accept the outcome of that act. If you don't want to get a girl pregnent then you have Surgical Sterilization.

Another thing I see is some people want something that is 100% fool proof yet that doesn't exsist in life except for the act of not having sex but there is always a slight chance that a woman can lay in the same bed that you performed self release in and get knocked up.

Here is a list of all knonw forms of birth control with there failure rates and a description of it. Take a close look some at 99% effective in preventing birth. Not much more room for improvment there.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved a number of birth control methods. The choice of birth control depends on factors such as a person's health, frequency of sexual activity, number of sexual partners, and desire to have children in the future. Failure rates, based on statistical estimates, are another key factor. The most effective way to avoid both pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is to practice total abstinence (refrain from sexual contact).Failure Rates in this chart are based on information from clinical trials submitted to the FDA during product reviews. This number represents the percentage of women who become pregnant during the first year of use of a birth control method. For methods that the FDA does not review, such as periodic abstinence, numbers are estimated from published literature. For comparison, about 85 out of 100 sexually active women who wish to become pregnant would be expected to become pregnant in a year. Serious medical risks from contraceptives, such as stroke related to oral contraceptives, are relatively rare. This chart is a summary of important information, including risks, about drugs and devices approved by the FDA for contraception and sterilization. It is not intended to be used alone, and a health professional should be consulted regarding any contraceptive choice. Review product labeling carefully for more information on use of these products.<HR width="100%">
Male Condom, Latex/Polyurethane

FDA Approval Date: Latex: Use started before premarket approval was required. Polyurethane: cleared in 1989; available starting 1995.
Description: A sheath placed over the erect penis blocking the passage of sperm.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 11 (a, b)
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions (less likely with polyurethane)
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): Except for abstinence, latex condoms are the best protection against STDs, including gonorrhea and AIDS.
Convenience: Applied immediately before intercourse; used only once and discarded. Polyurethane condoms are available for those with latex sensitivity.
Availability: NonprescriptionFemale Condom

FDA Approval Date: 1993
Description: A lubricated polyurethane sheath shaped similarly to the male condom. The closed end has a flexible ring that is inserted into the vagina.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 21
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): May give some STD protection; not as effective as latex condom
Convenience: Applied immediately before intercourse; used only once and discarded.
Availability: NonprescriptionDiaphragm with Spermicide

FDA Approval Date: Use started before premarket approval was required.
Description: A dome-shaped rubber disk with a flexible rim that covers the cervix so that sperm cannot reach the uterus. A spermicide is applied to the diaphragm before insertion.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 17 (b, d, e)
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions, urinary tract infection. (c) Risk of toxic shock syndrome, a rare but serious infection, when kept in place longer than recommended.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Inserted before intercourse and left in place at least six hours after; can be left in place for 24 hours, with additional spermicide for repeated intercourse.
Availability: PrescriptionLea's Shield

FDA Approval Date: 2002
Description: A dome-shaped rubber disk with a valve and a loop that is held in place by the vaginal wall. Covers the upper vagina and cervix so that sperm cannot reach the uterus. Spermicide is applied before insertion.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 15
Some Risks: Skin irritation, spotting, discomfort (female and male partners), urinary tract infection. Theoretical risk of toxic shock syndrome.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Inserted before intercourse and left in place at least 8 hours after; can be left in place for up to 48 hours, with additional spermicide for repeated intercourse.
Availability: PrescriptionCervical Cap with Spermicide

FDA Approval Date: Prentiff Cap--1988; FemCap--2003
Description: A soft rubber cup with a round rim, which fits snugly around the cervix.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): Prentiff Cap--17; FemCap--23 (b, d, e)
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions, abnormal Pap test. (c) Risk of toxic shock syndrome, a rare but serious infection, when kept in place longer than recommended.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: May be difficult to insert; can remain in place for 48 hours without reapplying spermicide for repeated intercourse.
Availability: PrescriptionSponge with Spermicide

FDA Approval Date: 1983 (Not currently marketed)
Description: A disk-shaped polyurethane device containing the spermicide nonoxynol-9.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 14-28 (d, e)
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions, difficulty in removal. (c) Risk of toxic shock syndrome, a rare but serious infection, when kept in place longer than recommended.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Inserted before intercourse and protects for repeated acts of intercourse for 24 hours without additional spermicide; must be left in place for at least six hours after intercourse; must be removed within 30 hours of insertion. Is discarded after use.
Availability: Nonprescription; not currently marketedSpermicide Alone

FDA Approval Date: Use started before premarket approval was required. Since November 2002, only one active ingredient has been allowed.
Description: A foam, cream, jelly, film, suppository, or tablet that contains nonoxynol-9, a sperm-killing chemical
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 20-50 (studies have shown varying effectiveness rates)
Some Risks: Irritation and allergic reactions, urinary tract infections (c)
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Instructions vary; check labeling. Inserted between 5 and 90 minutes before intercourse and usually left in place at least six to eight hours after.
Availability: NonprescriptionOral Contraceptives--combined pill

FDA Approval Date: First in 1960; most recent in 2003
Description: A pill that suppresses ovulation by the combined actions of the hormones estrogen and progestin. A chewable form was approved in November 2003.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Some Risks: Dizziness; nausea; changes in menstruation, mood, and weight; rarely, cardiovascular disease, including high blood pressure, blood clots, heart attack, and strokes
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken on daily schedule, regardless of frequency of intercourse. Women using the chewable tablet must drink 8 oz. of liquid immediately after taking.
Availability: PrescriptionOral Contraceptives--progestin-only minipill

FDA Approval Date: 1973
Description: A pill containing only the hormone progestin that reduces and thickens cervical mucus to prevent the sperm from reaching the egg.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 2
Some Risks: Irregular bleeding, weight gain, breast tenderness, less protection against ectopic pregnancy
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken on daily schedule, regardless of frequency of intercourse.
Availability: PrescriptionOral Contraceptives--91-day regimen (Seasonale)

FDA Approval Date: 2003
Description: A pill containing estrogen and progestin, taken in 3-month cycles of 12 weeks of active pills followed by one week of inactive pills. Menstrual periods occur during the 13th week of the cycle.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Some Risks: Similar to oral contraceptives--combined pill
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken on daily schedule, regardless of frequency of intercourse. Since users will have fewer periods, they should consider the possibility that they might be pregnant if they miss scheduled periods. May have more unplanned bleeding and spotting between periods than with 28-day oral contraceptives.
Availability: PrescriptionPatch (Ortho Evra)

FDA Approval Date: 2001
Description: Skin patch worn on the lower abdomen, buttocks, or upper body that releases the hormones progestin and estrogen into the bloodstream.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2 (Appears to be less effective in women weighing more than 198 pounds.)
Some Risks: Similar to oral contraceptives--combined pill
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: New patch is applied once a week for three weeks. Patch is not worn during the fourth week, and woman has a menstrual period.
Availability: PrescriptionVaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing)

FDA Approval Date: 2001
Description: A flexible ring about 2 inches in diameter that is inserted into the vagina and releases the hormones progestin and estrogen.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 1-2
Some Risks: Vaginal discharge, vaginitis, irritation. Similar to oral contraceptives--combined pill
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Inserted by the woman; remains in the vagina for 3 weeks, then is removed for 1 week. If ring is expelled and remains out for more than 3 hours, another birth control method must be used until ring has been used continuously for 7 days.
Availability: PrescriptionPost-Coital Contraceptives (Preven and Plan B)

FDA Approval Date: 1998-1999
Description: Pills containing either progestin alone or progestin plus estrogen
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): Almost 80 percent reduction in risk of pregnancy for a single act of unprotected sex
Some Risks: Nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, headache
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Must be taken within 72 hours of having unprotected intercourse.
Availability: PrescriptionInjection (Depo-Provera)

FDA Approval Date: 1992
Description: An injectable progestin that inhibits ovulation, prevents sperm from reaching the egg, and prevents the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks (serious medical risks from contraceptives are rare): Irregular bleeding, weight gain, breast tenderness, headaches
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: One injection every three months.
Availability: PrescriptionInjection (Lunelle)

FDA Approval Date: 2000
Description: An injectable form of progestin and estrogen
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks: Changes in menstrual cycle, weight gain. Similar to oral contraceptives--combined.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Injection given once a month.
Availability: PrescriptionImplant (Norplant)

FDA Approval Date: 1990
Description: Six matchstick-sized rubber rods that are surgically implanted under the skin of the upper arm, where they steadily release the contraceptive steroid levonorgestrel.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks: Irregular bleeding, weight gain, breast tenderness, headaches, difficulty in removal
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Implanted and removed by health-care provider in minor outpatient surgical procedure; effective for up to five years.
Availability: Prescription. In July 2002, Norplant's manufacturer announced that it will no longer distribute the Norplant system. Women using the system should contact their doctors about what their contraceptive options will be after the five-year expiration date of their Norplant systems.IUD (Intrauterine Device)

FDA Approval Date: 1976 (f)
Description: A T-shaped device inserted into the uterus by a health professional.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks: Cramps, bleeding, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility, perforation of uterus
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: After insertion by physician, can remain in place for up to one or 10 years, depending on type.
Availability: PrescriptionPeriodic Abstinence

FDA Approval Date: N/A
Description: To deliberately refrain from having sexual intercourse during times when pregnancy is more likely.
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): 20
Some Risks: None
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Requires frequent monitoring of body functions (for example, body temperature for one method).
Availability: Instructions from health-care providerTrans-abdonimal Surgical Sterilization--female (Falope Ring, Hulka Clip, Filshie Clip)

FDA Approval Date: Early 1970s (g)
Description: The woman's fallopian tubes are blocked so the egg and sperm can't meet in the fallopian tube, preventing conception. (h)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks: Pain, bleeding, infection, other post-surgical complications, ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: One-time surgical procedure that requires an abdominal incision.
Availability: SurgerySterilization Implant--female (Essure System)

FDA Approval Date: 2002
Description: Small metallic implant that is placed into the fallopian tubes. The device works by causing scar tissue to form, blocking the fallopian tubes and preventing conception. (h)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks: Mild to moderate pain after insertion, ectopic (tubal) pregnancy.
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: Minor surgical procedure, permanent sterilization. Device is inserted through the vagina using a catheter. Women must rely on another birth control method during the first three months, until placement is confirmed with an X-ray procedure.
Availability: PrescriptionSurgical Sterilization--male

FDA Approval Date: N/A
Description: Sealing, tying, or cutting a man's vas deferens so that the sperm can't travel from the testicles to the penis. (h)
Failure Rate (number of pregnancies expected per 100 women per year): less than 1
Some Risks (serious medical risks from contraceptives are rare): Pain, bleeding, infection, other minor postsurgical complications
Protection from Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs): None
Convenience: One-time surgical procedure.
Availability: Surgery<HR width="100%">
(a) Projected from six-month study and adjusted for use of emergency contraception.(b) If spermicides are used with barrier methods, be sure that the spermicide is compatible with the condom or diaphragm (won't cause it to weaken or break). Oil-based lubricants (such as petroleum jelly or baby oil) will cause latex to weaken and should not be used with these methods. (c) Spermicides used alone, with barrier devices, or with condoms can cause irritation to the skin lining the vagina, especially when the spermicide is used frequently. There is a possibility that spermicide might increase the risk of acquiring some sexually transmitted diseases because of disruption of the vaginal skin. Spermicide has not been proven to be effective against bacteria and viruses in people. Therefore, there is no reason to use spermicide during pregnancy.(d) Medications for vaginal yeast infections may decrease effectiveness of spermicides. (e) Less effective for women who have had a baby because the birth process stretches the vagina and cervix, making it more difficult to achieve a proper fit.(f) First approval date of currently marketed IUDs. Some IUDs were sold before premarket approval was required. Those products are no longer on the market.(g) Sold before premarket approval was required (1976).(h) A contraceptive option for people who don't want children. Considered permanent because reversal is typically unsuccessful.(Source: Food and Drug Administration 12/03)

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Flatrater

The second you decide to have sex you are accepting the outcome of that act. It's the same thing if I break the law knowing that I could get caught. I'm sure both parties know the possible result of a sex act could be a child. Wanted or not they are both aware of it. Consenting to sex is consenting to the ramifications to that act.

You hit the nail on the head there.

[lazysmurff]

oh man...

look, im not going to take the time to respond to everyones thoughts by finding a copying all their quotes, that would be silly, but i do see a trend that im going to respond to.

heres how i feel on the subject, and prepare yourself, its rather harsh.

If the pregnency is unwanted, the fetus amounts to nothing more than a parasite living within a host. it is totally reliant on the mother for life, and cannot function without her present, especially during the early months of pregnency. sure, it may potentially become a human being, but the fact remains, at that point and time, it isnt even alive. its just feeding off the mother.

sure, actions taken by the mother resulted in it being there, just like eating shitty food can result in a tapeworm being there. it may seem harsh, but i see no difference in removing either of them.

as for the whole "personal responsability" line, i dont buy it. its a bunch of bogus BS spouted by the religious right to try and somehow make every woman who gets an abortion out to be some irresponsable coward who cant run her own life, and thats simply not the case.

a woman who gets an abortion IStaking personal responsability for herself. she got into a situation, and rather than passivly accept what happened, she is taking an active role in the development of her life. personaly responsability has no higher purpose than the development of ones self.

sure, a woman may get pregnent from sex, but that doesnt mean she has to have a child. and if you could prevent her from even getting pregnent while still engaging in sex, wouldnt you? and to whoever said have a vasectomy...id like kids someday, just not now.

and as for having to accept a kid as a chance of sex. fact: people will have sex before they are ready to have kids. and i think they should. sex is healthy and fun. those that dont want kids will find a way to not have them. abortions are an option. as long as birth control remains less than 100% effective (and i know 99% sounds great, but its actually not...more on this as a foot note) and also remains such a taboo subject in american society there will be abortions, wether legal or not. accept it. deal with it. hell, even embrace it.

*as for the 99% effectiveness rating, we learned about this is math class freshman year, but ive since forgotten it. something to do with the fine print and how they determine that 99%, actually means its more like 60% effective in the real world. know any people who got pregnent while on the pill? i do.

[TexasF355F1]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

You hit the nail on the head there.

[lamehonda]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

18? Ha! More like permanent.

I should show that to my parents. Right now I'm 21 and the basement is my home.

[Rally Sport]

lazysmurff

[Gotti]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

If the pregnency is unwanted, the fetus amounts to nothing more than a parasite living within a host.

WOW... thats gotta be the most cruel thing i've read on AF

so another human being is a parasite to the person that created it, that really is sad

Have you seen a baby in a mothers stomach at the age when they do abortions? You can clearly see their heart beating. When i saw that, thats what really made me think this way about abortion. The fact that a doctor stops that heart from beating is murder, and that they pull that little body out and throw it away, is just inhumane IMO

Nothing changes the fact that if your parents would of had an abortion, you never would have even had a chance at life. An thats just not fair

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Thrasher

The analogy of killing someone with a car is ridiculous. There is no responsibility to assume. You violated a societal standard by putting in danger the life of someone else. That person has a right to life because they are under the care of an adult societal member. A fetus has no such right becuase they ARE NOT under the care of an adult societal member until said adult assumes care.

I think we're talking about slightly different aspects of responsibility. I was referring to the concept of responsibility where you were discussing acceptance of responsibility. As a driver, you are responsible for operating your vehicle in a reasonable manner, whether you accept the responsibility or not. My point was that sometimes responsibility exists without definitive acknowledgement by the person bearing that responsibility. For instance, even though killing the woman in the street may have been an accident, the driver can still be held responsible - people have been convicted of manslaughter for accidentally running down a person. Likewise if a woman is pregnant, both the woman and the man she was involved with are responsible for the creation of that new life. I do however see and understand your distinction, that until the parent makes the decision that they will take care of the child, that care will not occur.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

If the pregnancy is unwanted, the fetus amounts to nothing more than a parasite living within a host. it is totally reliant on the mother for life, and cannot function without her present, especially during the early months of pregnancy.

Maybe I'm taking this out of context, but by this reasoning young children aren't viable either since they are totally reliant on an adult for quite some time.

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

sure, actions taken by the mother resulted in it being there, just like eating shitty food can result in a tapeworm being there. it may seem harsh, but i see no difference in removing either of them.

I'd disagree on the comment that a tapeworm and a human fetus are equivalent. Rather than make an assumption, I'll just ask - are reducing the value of humans? (and have we had this discussion before? )

Gotti, you got it right. Human fetal heartbeat by 4 weeks.
-----
Here's a chronology:

1. Immediately upon fertilization, cellular development begins. Before implantation the sex of the new life can be determined.

2. At implantation, the new life is composed of hundreds of cells and has developed a protective hormone to prevent the mother's body from rejecting it as a foreign tissue.

3. At 17 days, the new life has developed its own blood cells; the placenta is a part of the new life and not of the mother.

4. At 18 days, occasional pulsations of a muscle - this will be the heart.

5. At 19 days, the eyes start to develop.

6. At 20 days, the foundation of the entire nervous system has been laid down.

7. At 24 days, the heart has regular beats or pulsations.

8. At 28 days, 40 pairs of muscles are developed along the trunk of the new life; arms and legs forming.

9. At 30 days, regular blood flow within the vascular system; the ears and nasal development have begun.

10. At 40 days, the heart energy output is reported to be almost 20% of an adult.

11. At 42 days, skeleton complete and the reflexes are present.

12. At 43 days, electrical brain wave patterns can be recorded. This is usually ample evidence that "thinking" is taking place in the brain. The new life may be thought of as a thinking person.

13. At 49 days, the baby has the appearance of a miniature doll with complete fingers, toes and ears.

14. NAME CHANGED FROM EMBRYO TO FETUS. At 56 days all organs functioning - stomach, liver, kidney, brain - all systems intact. Lines in palms. All future development of new life is simply that of refinement and increase in size until maturity at approximately age 23 years. This is approximately two months before "quickening" yet there is a new life with all of its parts needing only nourishment. The mother will usually not feel the child's movements until four months after conception.
-----

Having said all that though, I still believe it is the individual's own moral decision what to do when a pregnancy occurs. However some standard for when the child in question "becomes" human is required and should be stringently adhered to.

The battle rages.....

.

[AlmostStock]

It seems to me that even if you are against abortion you have to agree that there are much worse problems facing children around the world who have already been born and are much more consciously aware of their pain and suffering.

Tens of thousands of children die every day because of hunger related diseases. I find this much more inhumane than the aborting of fetuses that, while they are alive, certainly do not have the awareness that is in any way close to that of children outside the womb. Why then are many abortion opponents so vocal and active about their feelings on abortion, yet silent and passive on this more important issue, even when their country's foreign policy increases this suffering?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4395525.stm