it really seems to me that favoring the morning after pill is conceding my point that killing babies is ok, just that you believe it to a lesser extent than i do. isnt it true that the morning after pill often kills a fetus, albeit a very very slightly developed one?
Who is *they" in your argument? If by they, you mean a legislature, I would imagine the people would revolt if a legislature passed a law whereby parents or guardians were given a 5-year window to determine whether or not they wanted the extra expense related to raising a child to the age of majority. The revolt may or may not be a violent one, but I'm pretty sure it would take place at the polls at the very least. If by they, you mean the Supreme Court. That's a trickier question. Unfortunately the people give great deference to the Supreme Court of the United States. However, it is one thing for the Court to determine what is or isn't free speech, an illegal search and seizure, etc. or when they are interpreting legislation But when the Court takes the path that this Court is undertaking more and more which is to push for a social agenda, I suspect that deference may be waning. Of course you know, specific to your issue, abortion rights were not a legislative decision for the people to revolt against, it was a judicial creation, whereby Justice Blackmun wore the hat of a physician with his trimester theory. So it would remain to be seen whether this deference would extend, if, for example, the Justices decided that somewhere in the right to privacy existed the right for a parent to decide whether or not to keep a child past the age of 1, 2 or 5. I can't fathom what *right* this would fall under, but this Court is constantly coming up with new rights.
The morning after pill prevents a zygote from being implanted in the uterus. By definition a pregnancy is an embryo that is implanted in the uterus.
That is true which is why I do not support it, and I am even more against making it over the counter which will increase the killing of fetuses and just be abused. I do wonder if there are studies or estimates on what these pills would do to a fetus after 72 hours particularly if a teenager tries to double up because she waited to long, or what would happen to her if she did this even within 72 hours in an attempt to make sure. A nervous kid starts to think about 88% to 91% success rate, and you never know what they will do. I am not making a point with these statements I just do not know. This is not like some over the counter pills where you know in an hour or so if the pill worked. You also do not know if you really need it. Will kids or even adults be more prone to having unsafe sex, because they can just pop these pills the next day since they are over the counter? I am not saying these pills will lead to more sex just that in the spur of the moment some might just decide to go without a condom if their main concern is not getting pregnant.
i am no scientist, but it appears to me that dallastigers is right. the unique genetic material that defines a new human being is present in a zygote, is it not? this is a unique human, genetically different from the parents, correct? do we have to wait until this zygote begins cell division as a fetus and divides an arbitrary number of tiumes to call it a life? and even if we do, isnt it true that the abortion pill will kill a fetus that has begun cell division? pro-choicers push the date of life beginning all the way to birth, which is ludicrous. people in favor of the abortion pill push the point of life beginning to sometime after the pill would be used. everyone who advocates abortion pushes the date that life begins to a time they feel is convenient. why not just admit that abortion is murder, but like me, you dont care?
What kind of catchy slogan is that? Abortion is murder, but I don't care? I like the one about you only believe women are good for breeding unless you support abortion. Its a little too long for a bumper sticket, but its perfect as far as hysteria.
Well THAT'S reassuring You admit to abortion being murder and you just don't care? What is your stand on murders in general then, martin? Do you not care about those either?
you are part of the society that allows "abortion". do you think society thinks we should allow "abortions" of adults? thats a stupid question isnt it? and yet you asked me the same thing. is abortion ok as long as we use the word "abortion" to describe it? never admit that abortion is murder, because murder is wrong. "abortion" is ok though right?
The problem here is that the society that allows abortions doesn't give a fetus the status of life. If all of society believed, as you do, that the fetus was alive from the moment of conception, then I have a hard time believing that many people would say that it was ok to kill it. The fact is that most people who are in favor of abortion claim abortion is ok only because a fetus is not alive, making its rights are subordinate to the mother's. If everyone in this country had your intellectual honesty, abortion would be given the same legal treatment as other murders. The problem is that we don't, and it's nothing new. Indians were savages, so killing them was no big deal. Slaves were not people, so it was ok to treat them as a personal asset to be bought, used, and sold. While your ultimate stance - that abortion is ok - is one widely held, your premise - that it's murder but that life has less valus so it's ok to kill it - is probably not as popular.
