Emergency Contraception Vs. Abortion

[Aliceefelldown]

Okay, I am in NO WAY supporting ANY of this.

What is better:

Giving a child a terrible life/ cheating it of a good life

Or

Taking its WELL-DESERVED LIFE

or

NOT HAVING UN-PROTECTED SEX BEFORE OUR MARRIED ANYWAY!

GROW A BRAIN PEOPLE!

[helps]

i think you should shut up. yoou probably stepped on an ant on your way to record this video you murdering fuck

[MrsGWright]

Don't you heartless people feel any pity for the itty-bitty human child who might possibly be created by the Lord if your after-fornication pill fails to function? That young person might not make his or her sweet little way down Mommy's fallopian tube to make a nice little bed in her uterus! The world is already a terrible dangerous place for these children: many of them die on their precious journey to the womb.

These tiny babies are a holy message! Renounce your sin and be a mommy.

[kcsorci]

@MrsGWright WTH does 'possibly be created by the Lord' mean, anyway? Is the Lord back in that old 'impregnating the virgin' game? Despite your emotive outburst, women are fully due their full civil rights; twomen do not suddenly lose their status as citizen immediately upon becoming pregnant (thank the Lord for that, eh?)

[MrsGWright]

Women don't lose their status as citizens! They get a great big promotion to being a Mommy! There's nothing more rewarding, not matter WHAT people might say about "fufillment" and "having it all," I am MUCH happier than all those strumpets who spread their legs and refuse to be Mothers.

[kcsorci]

@MrsGWright When one advocates that women should lose their civil rights, one is most certainly advocating that women lose their citizenship rights immediately upon becoming pregnant. There simply is no way around that. You do not get to decide how happy other people are... sheesh, inflated sense of self much? Pregnant women are the most qualified people to making any and all decisions regarding their pregnancies. Period.

[MrsGWright]

Pregnant women get the wonderful task of bringing a baby into the world! How can you hate babies so much???? I'll pray for you.

Pregnant women CAN make some decisions, like how to decorate the nursery, or what kind of stroller they'll put the little angel in; they can even choose the name of the baby. They just have to remain pregnant till God says it's time to bring Baby into the world.

[kcsorci]

@MrsGWright being forced to risk ones well-being by gestating an unwanted pregnancy is most certainly not a 'wonderful task' (unless the person who would violate a woman's civil rights merely because of her biological capacity for becoming pregnant were a sadist) Pregnant women ALONE should make any and *all* decisions regarding their pregnancies. Further, your personal beliefs regarding gods control over the labor/birthing process are irrelevant to anyone other than you & your loved ones.

[prolifepinay]

@kcsorci Abortion is not a civil right. Get a reality check, please. "Reproductive rights" and "sexual rights" and other so-called "civil rights" are inventions of seriously misguided feminists who think baby killing is proof that they are indeed free and have rights! *eyeroll*

[kcsorci]

Terminating a pregnancy is every bit as responsible as gestating a pregnancy. Further, over half of all women who experience an unintended pregnancy were using some form of contraception during the month that they became pregnant. Your opinions about what a pregnancy should mean are completely irrelevant to anyone other than you.

[Canbuhay]

Is that your opinion about pro-lifers? Why are you imposing that opinion on us? Pro-lifers aren't making a subjective claim when they say abortion kills human beings. We're not saying that is our truth. We're saying the unborn are biologically human beings and that we should kill human beings.

Biology, not the Bible tells us what the unborn are .

What's your evidence that they aren't human beings?

[kcsorci]

"Is that your opinion about pro-lifers? "

Do you mean... that what the feel about some other woman's pregnancy is irrelevant? Yes.

"Why are you imposing that opinion on us? "

Please do explain how allowing each woman to decide the best course for her own pregnancy (based upon her personal beliefs) is forcing "my" opinion on anyone.

[Canbuhay]

Is it wrong to oppose the idea that women shouldn't be able to abort? Is that your idea? Are you saying that that should be the law? Then aren't you imposing that belief on those of us who disagree with you? If the unborn are human beings, aren't you imposing that belief on them?

True tolerance means you respect the right of those who disagree with you to act and believe as they wish. Pro-choicers expect pro-lifers to believe as they wish but to act as pro-choicers.

[kcsorci]

"aren't you imposing that belief on them?"

Each person is entitled to her or his own personal beliefs regarding abortion, personhood and life... what they cannot do is impose these beliefs on others. Are you all clear now? See how it isn't possible to impose free will?

[Canbuhay]

"What they cannot do" - why can't they do that? Is that your opinion? No one is denying that women can choose abortion. Everything we do is a choice. But not all choices are right and not all choices should be legal. The statement you made about each person being entitled to their beliefs works great - but don't we need to define what persons are before you discuss what rights they should have?

[kcsorci]

"why can't they do that?"

People should have full bodily autonomy (it should be the right of every person everywhere but I know that this is not always true) There is no consensus regarding the "personhood" of a fertilized egg (or any other stage of pregnancy.) The right to decide if, when & under what circumstances to give birth to a child is a right that every woman should have. Pregnant women are the most qualified people to be making decisions regarding their pregnancies.

[Canbuhay]

The fact that we are having this dialogue means there is no consensus on the right for every woman to kill her fetus. Does that mean that this right doesnt exist? Or does that mean certain things are right or wrong, even if people disagree on them?

[kcsorci]

"but don't we need to define what persons are before you discuss what rights they should have? "

The concept of "personhood" as been debated for decades and there is no consensus among scholars, theologians, scientist and/or philosophers on what, exactly "personhood" even is. I live in the US and the citizens of this country are entitled to their full citizenship rights which include (but are not limited to) liberty, bodily autonomy & bodily integrity, privacy & due process.

[kcsorci]

"Pro-lifers aren't making a subjective claim when they say abortion kills human beings"

Yes, they are; they're also being emotive. An abortion kills a human zygote, embryo and/or fetus. The human being (you know, that mass that surrounds the uterus) is merely making the best, most moral & responsible decision regarding her unwanted/doomed pregnancy. But then, being truthful wouldn't exactly rally the troops so it behooves those who are anti-abortion to be as emotive & misleading as possible.

[Canbuhay]

[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm...unites with a female gamete or oocyte...to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Moore, Ph.D. & Persaud, Md., (1998), p2-18.

[kcsorci]

Human development begins at fertilization

Certainly... human reproduction begins with a cell formed by the union of two gametes.

"This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual"

And please do prove that if I hadn't been born as a result of the union of sperm and ova from the Smiths, I wouldn't have been born as a result of the union of sperm and ova from the Jones.

[Canbuhay]

If your parents are the Smiths, then they would have produced children who are members of their family.

I'm not sure how that proves anything.

[kcsorci]

If your parents are the Smiths, then they would have produced children who are members of their family

Well, that doesn't even make sense. The fact is that you cannot prove each of us "as a unique individual" exist upon conception just as you cannot prove that each of us "as a unique individual" do not exist after death (or prior to conception.) So, I suppose that your last sentence "I'm not sure that proves anything" was spot on, eh?

[Canbuhay]

Again, I'm just talking about our physical bodies. Our physical bodies begin somewhere and according to my sex ed class from public school, anything that reproduces sexually begins life at fertilization. That one cell is the genesis for all my other cells. I'm not sure what they teach you at PP, but simple biology teaches us that each individual organism begins life when the male gamete (sperm) fuses with the female gamete (egg), otherwise it cannot be sexual reproduction.

[kcsorci]

"I'm just talking about our physical bodies"

We are not our physical bodies... we are our minds, our life experiences, our loved ones, our choices... which is why it is impossible to *define* personhood. You are certainly free to believe that "biological personhood" and I am free to believe that what makes up people is much more than biological.

[xalisae]

Then...murder laws aren't right, because there is no standard definition for what constitutes an actual person worthy of protection under the law, and you should be allowed to kill whoever you believe to not be a person, regardless of what your personal criteria for personhood might be, right?

[kcsorci]

"Then...murder laws aren't right,"

Right... because the criminalization of people killing people with intent, malice aforethought and with no legal excuse or authority is just wrong, eh? @@ Sounds like you have issues with not only legal terminology but morality and critical thinking to boot. Kudos on that.

[xalisae]

Excuses, excuses. It's prefectly fine to do whatever you please, as long as you can legitimize it to yourself, huh.

[kcsorci]

I've offered no "excuses" for anything and I've never made the statement that it is fine for me to "do whatever [I] please" and how on earth would "legitimize" a belief? It seems to me that it would behoove you to stick with the topic at hand... stop with the ad hominem and admit that what we have here is a difference of opinion.

[kcsorci]

"The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Moore, Ph.D. & Persaud, Md., (1998), p2-18"

Nothing you've written (and certainly nothing that Keith Moore has written) proves that a human being is killed when a woman opts to terminate her pregnancy. A human zygote, embryo and/or fetus is killed... there is a difference between being human and a human being/person, right?

[Canbuhay]

Tell me, what's the difference?

[kcsorci]

Tell me, what's the difference?

Let's see... my ova is human but my ova is not a human being. Sperm is human but sperm is not a human being. A zygote is human but a zygote is not a human being. An adjective is not a noun.

[xalisae]

No, you're being intentionally incorrect. Your ova is a human CELL. A spermatozoon is a human CELL. A zygote is far more than just a single human cell, it is the entirety of another entity in a stage of its life cycle. That is scientific fact.

[kcsorci]

"Your ova is a human CELL. A spermatozoon is a human CELL."

A zygote is a human CELL, what's your point?

[xalisae]

An implanted blastocyst/fetus is not just a CELL. It is a collection of cells which come together to form a new organism, just like you or I. That's my point.

[kcsorci]

A zygote is a "collection of cells" regardless of whether or not it implants and it is not "just like you or I" unless you believe yourself to be nothing more than a collection of unfeeling, unthinking cells. Not that you aren't entitled to this belief... I just happen to disagree.

[xalisae]

Well, having worked in special education, I've met a lot of people who weren't able to think and feel in the same ways as you or I. Personally, I didn't find this lack of ability to make them any less human. The same goes for a blastocyst that implants into the uterine lining to become the fetal human. Just because it can't think or feel at that moment doesn't mean it won't...I think it'd be unreasonable to unplug a person from life support that had a favorable prognosis.

[kcsorci]

right, and this is relevant to the discussion of abortion (and the zygotes, embryo's and/or fetus) how, exactly? Are you actually saying that the people you are working with in special education are merely a cluster of unthinking, unfeeling cells? Honey, simply because these people may think or feel in the same way you or I do does not mean that they do not think or feel... my goodness, what a terrible thing to imply. An embryo, at implantation, is not capable of thought &/or feelings... period.

[xalisae]

i'm saying that if you want to choose to reduce a group of people to the classification of "non-persons" based on their cognitive capacity or abilities (a temporary state, by the way. It's not as if the embryonic person would never reach a stage in which it would think and feel, if only you didn't kill it), what's stopping you at the pre-born?

[kcsorci]

I would never even think of reducing a person to the status of "non-person" under any circumstances. However, the zygote, embryo &/or fetus has never, ever (not in the history of the world) been considered a person or on par with people. Further, your fallacy that not giving zygotes, embryo's &/or fetus' rights (which no person has, mind you) will suddenly put those in your special education classes at risk is somewhat laughable. Let's stick with pregnancy when speaking of abortion, shall we?

[prolifepinay]

@kcsorci So says anti-life baby killers in your alternate universe and alternate "history of the world". Human zygotes, embryos, fetuses are human beings. All human beings are persons. You have no right to say your own child is not a human person just as you have no right to say that a "Black slave" is a non-person.

[kcsorci]

"We're saying the unborn are biologically human beings and that we should kill human beings"

Then you're being untruthful. Biological life does not = person/human being. Now, you certainly are free to believe that the biological life of the conceptus is on par with the life of the pregnant woman and I am perfectly free to believe that it is not. You are free to risk your life &/or health for your pregnancy; I am free not to... and that's okay too.

[Canbuhay]

So what's the difference between a biological human being and a person? Unless you are one of the few people on earth who've never taken sex ed where we learn that everything that reproduces sexually begins life at fertilization? What's dishonest is to play these word games because we're not just claiming biological life. We're saying science tells us a new unique individual begins life at fertilization. Where's your science?

[kcsorci]

biological human being

What would that even mean? Biological life does not = person/human being. Check a science book. You may argue that the biological life of the fertilized ova is on par with the lives of pregnant women, and I will vehemently disagree. What we have here is a difference of opinion. The most qualified person to be making decisions regarding her pregnancy is the pregnant woman (her personal beliefs are the only relevant beliefs.)

[Canbuhay]

Pro-lifers make 2 claims when they say abortion is wrong: Abortion kills a human beings and human beings are inherently valuable. The second does not follow from the first and both need to be discussed. But to insist that the most qualified person to decide whether or not the unborn should be allowed to live makes no sense. They are either objectively persons or not and they either have a right to live or not. It's like saying someone is slightly pregnant. The right to life is not a preference.

[kcsorci]

to insist that the most qualified person to decide whether or not the unborn should be allowed to live makes no sense.

When you make statements that the pregnant woman's personal beliefs regarding life, personhood, pregnancy & parenthood are not relevant within the realm of her own life, then I'm afraid that you've gone to a place where rational people simply cannot follow; when we remove pregnant women from discussions regarding their pregnancies we discount them as moral, competent beings

[Canbuhay]

You miss the point. You've decided who are the most qualified, you've decided the unborn are some sort of undefinable object. The unborn are still something and what they are doesn't change from person to person. They are either human beings or they are not.

[kcsorci]

"You've decided who are the most qualified"

No, *I* haven't "decided" anything. The rights to bodily integrity and self sovereignty tell us that. Our laws "decided" that each individual has control over his/her own body... not the government, not the state, not any religion, nor any person who is morally opposed to abortion.

[xalisae]

Actually, the SCOTUS embelished the 14th amendment while knowingly ignoring evidence (and when I say "ignoring", I mean they didn't even hear any) to support any rights whatsoever for the pre-born. No DNA, no ultrasound, no nothing, and they outrightly said that the reason they did this intentionally was because medical science had not progressed far enough. We've come a long way since that kind of ignorance. But apparently not everyone has...

[kcsorci]

No "evidence" was ignored (nor required) in order to write & pass the 14th amendment... it states that anyone born or naturalized in the US is a citizen (and as such, due their rights - oh, this includes women, even if they're pregnant... even if their pregnancy is unwanted.) Now, please feel free to provide proof of your assertion, otherwise, while you are certainly entitled to your opinions you must know that they do not make something factual, right?

[kcsorci]

"They are either human beings or they are not. "

The are not.

[kcsorci]

"decided the unborn are some sort of undefinable object"

No, I am aware of prenatal development. First, you have a zygote, then an embryo and then a fetus... these are easily identifiable "objects." They are human zygotes, human embryo's and human fetus' - they are not human beings - however, pregnant women are human beings entitled to their full rights.

[xalisae]

Prenatal development of a WHAT, kcsorci? What entity are we talking about the prenatal development of? Are you so far in denial you can't bear to make the connection? Can you not even bring yourself to say it? I'd laugh at you if you weren't so sadly pathetic.

[kcsorci]

"They are either objectively persons or not and they either have a right to live or not"

They're not and there is no way that they ever could be.

[Canbuhay]

Great counter. What's your evidence? That's still your opinion that "there is no way that they could ever be." That's still your opinion you are forcing on pro-lifers and anyone else who disagrees!

[kcsorci]

What's your evidence? That's still your opinion that "there is no way that they could ever be."

Logistically, we simply cannot afford rights to a zygote, an embryo &/or a fetus which no other person has. No person has the right to force another person to sustain their life... for heavens sake, a person cannot even force another person to undergo any form of bodily invasion without their consent. My "evidence" is the law.

[cornersmith]

Pro-lifers are against contraception because the problem at the root of abortion isn't solved by contraception! The problem isn't fertilized eggs, the problem is irresponsible people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their love. The human person is meant to be loved as an end, not as a means. Men need to uphold their women's dignity, women need to realize and stand up for their dignity, and society needs to protect the sanctity of human life. NFP is a solution to the problem.