The Day After Pill

[heavycola]

So you accept the story in Genesis but can disregard the main rulebook? How?

[jay_a2j]

So you accept the story in Genesis but can disregard the main rulebook? How?


And yes, i do. It's called humanism. I put myself in the place of god because the time when humans needed to believe in him has come to an end. The idea got us through some rough times but it was only ever a survival mechanism. The humanist age is dawning. Church attendances are falling - in wonderful, enlightened europe at least - people are embracing humanism and there hasn't been a single thunderbolt.

The entire Bible is the "main rulebook". Jesus came and fulfilled the law. IE in the OT it was "eye for an eye" in the NT "if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the left also". The "story in Genesis is not LAW. Its an account of what happened.


And as far as your "church attendence falling". Hmmm "In those days many will turn from the faith". And you'd be well advised to expect alot more then a mere thunderbolt.

[flare71]

but as you speak of making your own moral choices, it is not just a belief in God that keeps people from say murdering others. just because some one may be an atheist doesn't make them prone to killing. if you research the ways that abortions are performed, you'll see the gruesomeness. i won't go into detail on them here, as there are children on the site. i hesitate to speak, as speaking usually gets me in trouble. and even though it has been severly watered down, i'll make it small, as i suppose it is NSFW and NSFC as well.
but as to the child not being "it's own living creature" the time, after only nine or ten weeks after conception, a human can flip, squint it's eyes, from, swallow, etc. this is the time when suction abortions are performed.
after twelve weeks, a common method is suction aspiration, involving a vacuum.
Dialation and Curattage, same as above but with a hook shaped knife..
after 12 weeks, a child can feel pain, and yet six weeks later the Dialation and Evacuation method is put in place.
Saline Injections (salt poisoning), kills a child and burns off a layer of its skin, the mother then gives birth to a dead baby. if the baby survives, it is left to die.
after six months prostaglandin chemical abortions are performed, causing the uterus to contract, killing or decapitating the baby.
a caesarean section, not to deliver, but to cut the umbilical cord and suffocate the baby.
i won't even venture into partial birth abortions because they are too gruesome to even speak of in my opinion.

i'm through arguing, i'm not going to force my opinions on you. but that's how i feel.

[heavycola]

The entire Bible is the "main rulebook". Jesus came and fulfilled the law. IE in the OT it was "eye for an eye" in the NT "if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the left also". The "story in Genesis is not LAW. Its an account of what happened.

Fine. Accepted. My point is - why accept Genesis but not leviticus? if the bible is all god's word, why disregard huge chunks of it?


And i am happy spending my life living it, not waiting to be raptured up or struck down. Even if heaven exists, it would be full of godbotherers and christians. Give me hell anyday.

[carl]

Well that's a new one to me. Never heard anyone choose Hell over Heaven.

[jay_a2j]

why accept Genesis but not leviticus? if the bible is all god's word, why disregard huge chunks of it?

I accept Genesis and Leviticus. In the NT Jesus said, "You have heard eye for an eye but I tell you the truth, if someone strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the left also." Thus fulfilling the law.

And i am happy spending my life living it, not waiting to be raptured up or struck down. Even if heaven exists, it would be full of godbotherers and christians. Give me hell anyday.

There is not a soul in hell that is currently thinking, "Well, this is better than being with those Christians."

[heavycola]

You have heard eye for an eye but I tell you the truth

So he was basically calling moses a liar?

And yeah, i'll take hell. All my heroes would be down there.

[jay_a2j]

You have heard eye for an eye but I tell you the truth

So he was basically calling moses a liar?

And yeah, i'll take hell. All my heroes would be down there.

No He completed the Law.


And dude, hell is not some big 'ole party. Why do many people talk about hell as if it were a theme park?

[foutballfreek15]

Because they don't believe in God!

[kbchilla]

see next post (error in quoting)

[kbchilla]

Highborn would a mother of a two month old have the "choice" to kill her child? If the baby is living when it comes out of the womb why is it NOT living months , weeks or days before its born? The child in the mothers woumb is NOT her body...the child has a body of its own. And people need to stop playing God in deciding who lives and who dies.

How many times have we heard about a mother making this exact "choice", leaving her baby in a dumpster, or whatever other vile way. While the child in the mothers womb may not be her body, it is certainly her responsibility, and for so many who are not able to assume this responsibility, bringing that child into the world can result in devestating consequences for that child, and/or the mother. The more children being raised without love and guidance= the more problems for them and the society that they affect.
And everyone who thinks of the morning after pill as an abortion can also protest the use of any orally ingested birth control, because they are both CONTRACEPTIVES- they prevent preganacy. The morning after pill works primarily by delaying or inhibiting ovulation. In addition it may disrupt fertilization (the joining of the egg and sperm) or possibly prevent implantation (the planting of the fertilized egg into the womb). It is not effective if a woman is already pregnant, as it cannot terminate an existing pregnancy.

[jay_a2j]

While the child in the mothers womb may not be her body, it is certainly her responsibility, and for so many who are not able to assume this responsibility, bringing that child into the world can result in devestating consequences for that child, and/or the mother. The more children being raised without love and guidance= the more problems for them and the society that they affect.

You toss a kid into the dumpster you go to jail. And GIVE ME A BREAK with the " bringing that child into the world can result in devestating consequences for that child". AT LEAST ITS ALIVE! If you are "unable to assume responsibility" of having a child , DON'T GET PREGNANT! You don't KILL a child because its inconvienent for the mother! This infuriates me. The total lack of respect for preserving a childs life out of MERE CONVIENCE of the mother is sick and twisted.

[rocksolid]

For the record, I do consider abortion the ending of a human life, and the morning after pill likewise - I just don't find it useful to orient a debate on that question, as it ultimately comes down to what you consider a human life - Spuzzell's definition or jay_a2j's. And the dialogue never seems to lead anywhere in terms of one side sharing anything with the other.

The debate itself seems to leave both sides holding unsustainable positions. Debates over when a fetus "becomes" human have always seemed to me to lead to inevitable conclusions - if we search for some magical quality the presence or absence of which determines an organism's humanity, I think we end up realizing pretty soon that until a baby, or even a developmentally challenged adult, develops a mental capacity that surpasses an animal's, it hasn't "become" human in a way that differentiates it from the sort of organisms we kill and eat quite regularly (or many of us, anyway). This gets uncomfortably close to eugenics, which I don't think anybody wants. Setting the acceptable limit of fetal development for termination at some point between conception and speech always seems to me to be an exercise in policy, pure and simple, and is probably more wisely articulated in that sort of language than via rhetoric about humanity/non-humanity, which will quickly call into play each side's assertion of a stated belief and end all useful discussion.

That's why it's seemed to me that the furore over court cases about abortion (primarily in the U.S.) are a distracting circus. I can't verify this as I heard it in conversation, but I believe the number of abortions per year during Republican presidencies has generally been higher than during Democratic presidencies, and if it's true it makes total sense to me: I don't think laws criminalizing abortion are likely to be that successful at reducing the number of abortions - the "unwanted" pregnancy is in large part a social construct that flows necessarily from an individualistic economic system. An administration that reduces funding to social programs is going to leave more women in a position where they feel they have no choice but to have an abortion, whether it's legal or not. A true pro-life political platform would provide a program of true support for children so that mothers would not feel that they had no choice. But try selling that in Congress over the cries of the religious right that you're encouraging single motherhood...

Honestly I think the real problem in society today is that a lot of peoples' lives are based around a mindless hedonism.

But... as regards it being purely getting off, that's an odd way of looking at it. As long as the act is not committed in a purely selfish fashion, then surely it amounts to more. Kids are not the be all and end all of sex.

I agree it's an odd way of looking at it. I attribute it to the fact that I'm an odd person.

I think what I was trying to communicate was not that kids are the be all and end all of sex, but that they're very much tied up in the whole phenomenon. We've been talking about the sex drive here as a kind of impulse that pushes you towards intercourse, pure and simple. But I can't imagine that it is. I think it's pushing us beyond intercourse. My non-existent grasp of evolutionary psychology tells me that at the deepest level, our bodies tell us sex is good because our bodies are dead-set on reproduction, continuing the presence of our chromosomes in the species, etc - a drive for genetic immortality. Now that doesn't mean that that makes sex all about children, but to me it does make it an inextricable component of the sex drive, and to ignore it is to ignore a profound part of what is going on inside us. That's why I made the unsuccessful comparison to masturbation - if we interrupt the follow through on the whole impulse that's driving us to sex in the first place, it doesn't seem that different from interrupting the continuum at the outset. The addition of another person is probably the most salient difference between masturbation and sex, so maybe I should have made the comparison to a handjob.

[kbchilla]

For the record, I do consider abortion the ending of a human life, and the morning after pill likewise

I don't understand how you can consider the morning after pill the ending of a human life, when it prevents the joining of the sperm and the egg! Do you consider all of your sperm your children?

[reverend_kyle]

For the record, I do consider abortion the ending of a human life, and the morning after pill likewise

I don't understand how you can consider the morning after pill the ending of a human life, when it prevents the joining of the sperm and the egg! Do you consider all of your sperm your children?

I know I do.. they're my boys!

[kbchilla]

You toss a kid into the dumpster you go to jail. And GIVE ME A BREAK with the " bringing that child into the world can result in devestating consequences for that child". AT LEAST ITS ALIVE! If you are "unable to assume responsibility" of having a child , DON'T GET PREGNANT! You don't KILL a child because its inconvienent for the mother! This infuriates me. The total lack of respect for preserving a childs life out of MERE CONVIENCE of the mother is sick and twisted.

Jay I was trying to get you to realize that emergency contraceptive does NOT end a life( unless you consider your sperm alive) and that the brutal murder of an innocent baby is far worse than the prevention of sperm and egg joining.

[carl]

A contraceptive pill may be a more "humane" way of avoiding children, but the pill and abortion both achieve the same ends - robbing a child of having a life. If you can't face facts and realize that you now have a child to care for, you are not responsible enough to be having sex. Ending a child's life to make your own easier is a terrible act.

[kbchilla]

A contraceptive pill may be a more "humane" way of avoiding children, but the pill and abortion both achieve the same ends - robbing a child of having a life. If you can't face facts and realize that you now have a child to care for, you are not responsible enough to be having sex. Ending a child's life to make your own easier is a terrible act.

The emergency contraceptive pill is NOT the abortion pill!!!! You are not ending a child's life with it- you are ending the sperms life_HUGE difference there!

[carl]

What is a sperm's life but a child's chance at life? Every sperm that is denied passage to the egg through the use of this contraceptive is one less chance a child has at living.

[jay_a2j]

As I understand "Plan B" it causes a woman to have an "instant period". Removing the egg from the womans body before it can be fertilized. I am not against preventive pregnancy measures as long as a fertilized egg is not harmed. "Plan B" may be a welcome alternative to the previous RU486 abortion pill which terminates a pregnancy.

[heavycola]

And dude, hell is not some big 'ole party

No, it doesn't exist. It was invented as a way to keep people like you in line.

[jay_a2j]

And dude, hell is not some big 'ole party

No, it doesn't exist. It was invented as a way to keep people like you in line.

lol well can't argue with that logic....or can I? Hell... a place of fire and brimstone, where there is weeping and knashing of teeth. One's refusal to believe in something does not render its non-existance.


I recommend the book To Hell and Back Written by a medical person who's job it was to "revive" the dead after their heart stop beatting. In it he states first hand account of those who died, went to hell and came back. Very good reading.

[Caleb the Cruel]

science has provided us with the means to avoid life destroying consequences ... and I am a believing Christian.

No. Science has provided us with an easy and direct path to life destroying consequences, the baby's. Since you say you are a Christian you would know that life begins at the very moment the sperm hits the egg.

OK.. here, have a look at this.

For most of the history of the Catholic Church, its thinkers viewed immediate animation/ensoulment as impossible, and under the traditional Catholic doctrine, a male fetus became animated—infused with a soul at forty days after conception, and the female fetus became animated at eighty days after conception.

n 1588, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the penalty for abortion (or contraception) was excommunication from the Church. However, his successor, Pope Gregory IX, returned the Church to the view that abortion of an unformed embryo was not homicide. This was largely the view until 1869, when Pope Pius IX again declared that the punishment for abortion was excommunication.

So there we go. Come back to me in 100 years and tell me what, as a Christian, I should know then. Because it'll be different. Fact is, as far as Catholicism is concerned, abortion has been the womans right for almost 2000 years, and a mortal sin for just 150.

Besides, I'm Anglican. We believe in common sense.

I don't really care about what the Catholics believe as I am not one of them. But I do care about Exodus 21:22 which says, 'If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.'
In the older version of Exodus the part that says with child is actually the word haw-raw or haw-ree meaning pregnant or concieved, which only further proves that abortion is wrong.

[heavycola]

a place of fire and brimstone, where there is weeping and knashing of teeth.

Where in the bible is this passage from Jay?

[stache hag]

I have not read this whole thread, so, I apologize if what I am saying has already been said. Well, I guess since it is my opinion, that doesn't matter.

First, let me say I am pro-choice, and, I voted no.

I don't know much about this pill, other than if you have unprotected sex, and take it within 72 hours, you will not get pregnant. If I remember correctly, a girl I went to HS with took it once, and I remember her saying she was in excruciating pain for a few days.... but that was almost 10 years ago.

I don't think it is a good idea to make it available over-the-counter. I do think it should be made fairly easily available, though. I just feel if it is made that readily available, it will be overused. Do we really know the effects of this pill? What will happen in 20 years?

Furthermore, when you go to Planned Parenthood, or to your regular gynecologist, they will offer you some counseling. A sixteen year old girl should not be able to go to CVS and buy the pill, she should be made to go to a doctor and get information and counseling, as well as the pill (for a relatively inexpensive fee).

I hope that makes sense. I am for the morning after pill, but, not for it being available over the counter.

Coincidentally, on the Saturday Today show, as I write this, there is a story about a girl who was denied the morning after pill by her physician.