A secular debate about abortion

[Coito ergo sum]

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

That is a key point that I think Seth's side fails to acknowledge.

Comparing zygotes and embryos and fetuses to post-birth humans fails in a number of ways, not the least of which is the key difference that in the case of pre-birth, the entity is either (a) part of the woman, not entirely separate from the woman, or (b) placing the woman in servitude (or both). Old folks aren't that, and that difference makes a lot of difference.

[hadespussercats]

And, then one for good measure...

A baker's dozen?

I'm over 40....by this age, you're lucky if you get "3rd time is the charm"

Well, if you can get to three at the ripe old age of 100, you're doing pretty well. A miracle of endurance, even!

Pretty well? I would think that if the damn thing works at 100, it's would almost constitute proof of the existence of God.

Your partner might think so, anyway...

[hadespussercats]

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

That is a key point that I think Seth's side fails to acknowledge.

Comparing zygotes and embryos and fetuses to post-birth humans fails in a number of ways, not the least of which is the key difference that in the case of pre-birth, the entity is either (a) part of the woman, not entirely separate from the woman, or (b) placing the woman in servitude (or both). Old folks aren't that, and that difference makes a lot of difference.

Word.

[lordpasternack]

Oh, COITOOOOO!

[hadespussercats]

I have to admit, female condoms have always struck me as sort of goofy, and they look like they're not too convenient to use.

We need more options for b/c!

[Copyleft]

I usually suggest compulsory birth-control implant devices, implanted in all babies at birth and removal upon request at or after age 18.

ETA: (That was in response to "We need more birth-control options.")

[hadespussercats]

I usually suggest compulsory birth-control implant devices, implanted in all babies at birth and removal upon request at or after age 18.

[lordpasternack]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

Edit: http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Contraceptio ... ption.aspx

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

[hadespussercats]

We have combined pills, progestogen-only pills, hormonal coils, copper coils, depo provera injections, progestogen implants, diaphragms and sponges with spermicide, and male and female condoms?

As for female condoms, though, I'm reliably told that they do leave quite a bit to be desired in convenience and effectiveness, not to mention, cost. On the bright side, though - they can be sterilised and reused! ( )

I don't even re-use my sandwich bags, so that last bit isn't really a tempter.

I think men in particular need more options. You spoke earlier of a pill variety for men-- that'd be nice. And barrier methods that didn't interrupt the moment/deaden sensation would be nice, too. IUD's are a little frightening, though I realize they've improved with time. Depo-provera shots are a long time commitment, and hormonal-based birth control pills can cause a lot of unpleasant side-effects for a lot of users-- though I was on the pill for close to twenty years without much problem.

There are options, sure-- but plenty of room for improvement.

[lordpasternack]

To my mind the idea for developing male hormonal contraception was to produce an implant, similar to the contraceptive implant women use - which doesn't entail having to take pills daily. Males are both continuously fertile, and their fertility is kind of "backdated" - due to the time it takes sperm to mature and eventually exit the body. If they went on hormonal contraception it would be kinda like getting a vasectomy in that they'd have to wait for so long before they would be "clean" - and if they forget a few pills one week, fertility resumes in the crevices of their balls, and surfaces so many days/weeks down the line. Implant is a better way to roll, there.

Also worth noting is that save for vasectomy, they'll never be completely infertile - they can only reduce their sperm-count and motile sperm to something considered effectively negligible. EFFECTIVELY infertile. More options are always good, though. For all concerned.

[Coito ergo sum]

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

That is a key point that I think Seth's side fails to acknowledge.

Comparing zygotes and embryos and fetuses to post-birth humans fails in a number of ways, not the least of which is the key difference that in the case of pre-birth, the entity is either (a) part of the woman, not entirely separate from the woman, or (b) placing the woman in servitude (or both). Old folks aren't that, and that difference makes a lot of difference.

Word.

Word up.

[Coito ergo sum]

I usually suggest compulsory birth-control implant devices, implanted in all babies at birth and removal upon request at or after age 18.

How about just blowjobs for me and all my friends?


On second thought, forget the friends....

[PsychoSerenity]

I usually suggest compulsory birth-control implant devices, implanted in all babies at birth and removal upon request at or after age 18.

How about just blowjobs for me and all my friends?


On second thought, forget the friends....

This thread has relaxed a bit since I last looked in.

[Gallstones]

Male chemical contraception has been tried in stallions.

Wildlife Contraception: Equids

Equine Reproduction: Contraception of the Stallion

[Seth]

Why isn't abortion an example of the withdrawing of life support? Cutting the cord, as opposed to pulling the plug?

Obviously it's not a "withdrawal of support," it's an invasive and dangerous medical procedure that kills the fetus, just like shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV tube would be.

Dangerous to the fetus? Sure. Dangerous to the woman? In the U.S. at least, abortions are far less dangerous to women than carrying a pregnancy to term.

Besides which, there are many abortions that are done without an invasive procedure. I suppose you could liken that to shooting a load of medication into grandma's IV-- though grandma's existence poses no curtailment on my rights, so the situations are not exactly parallel. Plus, some contraceptives work by keeping a fertilized egg from being able to implant in the first place-- i.e.- no cord. Since they work after fertilization occurs, are they abortions?

Depends on how you define "abortion." Anti-abortion advocates view any artificial interference with the natural course of pregnancy, including interfering with the implantation of the fertilized egg, to be an "abortion." I don't agree. And you make a rational argument. A fertilized egg floating down the fallopian tube prior to implantation is in a sort of "limbo" in this regard. Is "preventing implantation" the same as "abortion?" Nope, not in my book. I expressly approve of RU-487 and the practice of taking a "morning after pill" to prevent implantation as a reasonable course of action. Indeed, it's about the only exercise of reproductive responsibility post-insemination that I unreservedly approve of. Scientifically, the fertilized egg is NOT a human being, and the zygote is not formed for 22 to 26 hours after fertilization. Fertilization may take up to several days after insemination. Anything done to interrupt the cycle between insemination and the formation of the zygote does not affect a living human being, it affects the component parts of the mother and father. At the moment that the maternal and paternal chromosomes align along the common spindle apparatus, the zygote is formed and a new living human being comes into existence.

The zygote remains in transit and continues to develop into a blastocyst over the next five days, at which point it attaches to the uterine wall:

When the blastocyst emerges from the pellucid zone on the 5th day (3), it comes into contact with the maternal uterine mucosa in that it embeds itself in the endometrium with its embryonic pole.

I have no particular objection to interfering with that attachment, as distinguished from terminating that attachment at a later stage of development. This "in transit" period is one of the most common times for spontaneous abortion or miscarriage, which is a natural process that affects as many as 50 percent or more of developing zygotes/blastocysts. Making the uterine wall inhospitable to attachment prior to implantation seems to me to be a reasonable moral demarcation, although I cannot express any strong argument to favor that time over any other.