1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

When is an abortion NOT an abortion? Focusing on two weeks post conception

Discussion in 'Abortion' started by Bowerbird, Nov 23, 2011.

  1. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay - this is yet another attempt to inject a new perspective into the debate.

    What I would like is this thread NOT to be hijacked into "it's a baby, not it is not" that every thread on this forum appears to degenerate into

    Let us look instead into the first two weeks post conception.

    Are those birth control methods that prevent implantation also forms of abortion?
     
  2. Pasithea

    Pasithea Banned at Members Request

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Messages:
    6,980
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well considering fully fertilized ovum is a zygote when it is passing down the fallopian tubes to attach to the uterine wall...one has to wonder for all the lifers who cry that a zygote is a person if it really IS murder to prevent it from attaching to the uterus via emergency birth control methods.

    I have asked this question before too, but it seems to always hit too close for comfort and I never get a real answer from any of them. It's either goes ignored or the thread gets hijacked off onto people bickering with one another, because quite frankly I think that's all certain people want to do on this forum sometimes.
     
  3. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly - I am interested in the "grey" areas of this debate

    When is conception actually commenced (would you believe there are more than one accepted definition?)
    When is abortion "acceptable"
    What constitutes "immanent danger" for a woman
    When is viability?
    Legally how would you differentiate between an abortion by intent and a natural miscarriage (remembering that many abortions are done by medical means)
    and even "what punishment would you see meted to a woman who has an abortion"

    I am NOT interested in this everlasting back and forth about "it's a baby" and "No it is not"{
     
  4. TheHat

    TheHat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,929
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes they are. If you take something so that your baby cannot implant, then you are in fact aborting the baby. What other reason would you be taking that type of BC for?

    If nature were to take its course, ie with no BC, the body would try its hardest to maintain the baby coming down the fallopian tube. If the baby were "not viable" then it would not implant and therefor pass through the uterus and out the vaginal canal.

    By taking BC you are retarding the body's natural want to keep the baby there. Your providing an unnatural state within the uterus that would otherwise not be there and it would be done intentionally.

    So yes, you would in fact be causing the baby not to implant through premeditated means, no different then an abortion.

    I understand during these 1st 2 weeks, the momma wouldnt know she was pregnant b/c the body hasnt yet kicked into pregnancy mode, but that doesnt matter, the fact is, the baby has already been conceived, and is simply waiting to implant naturally or pass through naturally. Any attempt to retard the natural state of being, leads to an abortion of the baby.
     
  5. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you aware that up to 50% of fertilised eggs do not implant?

    Perhaps you would like every woman to be on fertility treatment "just in case"
    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/640510/embryo-implant-failure-breakthrough

    We are not talking about "babies" here but something that looks like this

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldLWUpt82hI&feature=related"]Embyro Implantation - YouTube[/ame]
     
  6. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,858
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    The point being...?
     
  7. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Old mother nature is the worlds most prolific abortionist

    The comment was that "if you take something so that your baby cannot implant"

    I am just pointing out that failure of implantation is a very common and very natural occurrence - in fact some research indicate that it might be more like 60 - 70% of fertilisations fail to implant which would mean that failure to implant is more common than implantation. Ergo the only thing a woman changes when she takes something like the minimill is the chance or odds that implantation will not occur
     
  8. Whaler17

    Whaler17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    26,653
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So as long as something naturally causes death occasionally, it is fine to intentionally simulate it and cause the death of another person? Your rationale is insane.

    Hell heart attacks kill people every day, so it should be legal to poison someone with a substance that causes a heart attack by your rationale.
     
  9. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In truth people DO do that - it is called "cholesterol"
     
  10. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,858
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Seeing everyone who isn't aborted eventually dies, it makes just as much sense to say "old mother nature" is the world's most prolific murderer, so I'm still missing your point.
     
  11. TheHat

    TheHat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,929
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sweetheart, you wanted an honest debate on this, I gave you one. You obviously can't handle a real discussion on the issue b/c your response was pathetic.
     
  12. TheHat

    TheHat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,929
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    0
    In fact, it took 5 short comments for your thread to turn into the very thing you stated that you didn't want it to become.

    AND YOU ARE THE 1 WHO DID IT.
     
  13. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That life is a lottery in any event. The odds are actually against a fertilised egg successfully implanting so raising those odds - does it really constitute "abortion"?
     
  14. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,858
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Gender:
    Male
    Brilliant. :roll:
    Of course it does, just as if I deliberately rigged your refrigerator so it would electrocute you it would be murder, even though you could be struck by lightning regardless.

    What an idiotic question.
     
  15. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So imo an abortion is anything that you do to deliberately prevent a fertilized egg from going full term. The key point is that it is deliberate, ie taking a pill or getting an operation, etc, with the intention of preventing the "fetus", "fertilized egg", whatever, from maturing into a baby (up to 24 weeks, or whenever the cut off point is).

    When a fertilised egg naturally fails to mature to full term, that would be a miscarriage.
     
    Felicity and (deleted member) like this.
  16. OKgrannie

    OKgrannie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Messages:
    10,924
    Likes Received:
    98
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If you prefer the course of events to follow a "natural" path, why is it OK to interfere with an UNfertilized egg? It makes no sense to interfere with nature as regards to an UNfertilized egg, but then protest that same interference with a fertilized egg. Either interfering with the natural course of events is OK or it is not. And you would have a difficult time living in today's world without interfering with the natural course of events.
     
  17. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, with a failure to initially IMPLANT it is considered to have simply been a failed attempt at pregnancy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
     
  18. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,790
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    @OKGrannie: Because an unfertilised egg isn't a fetus?

    I don't really understand what you're saying, can you please rephrase.

    @Bowerbird: Ok... but I don't understand the relevance. I didn't use "pregnancy" as a measure of abortion.

    Anyway I've decided miscarriage is not the right for what I mean. And actually I'm not sure that there is a word to describe it. The difference between a fertilised egg naturally failing to implant and the woman taking action to deliberately prevent it from implanting. Misscarriage is only after a certain amount of weeks apparently.

    But yes. IMO abortion is anything you deliberately with intention of preventing a fertilized egg (fetus, or whatever) from going full term. Whether or not is has already implanted I consider irrelevant.

    So yeah I think that if the pill prevents a fertilised egg from implanting then that was an abortion.

    It is the INTENTION that defines abortion imo.

    I'm pro-choice btw.
     
  19. Bowerbird

    Bowerbird Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    29,112
    Likes Received:
    540
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I have stated I actually, personally see no difference in deliberate intention to prevent implantation and natural failure to do so. Particularly since we have little or no idea of what factors truly influence early "abortion" like this. (and in medicine the term abortion is used to define all pregnancy losses whether natural or induced) Even ingestion of Pawpaw has been linked to miscarriage and certainly there is suspicion in relation to factors such as ingestion of large qualities of alcohol and coffee (although the last could be because the woman is jiggling up and down so are she shakes it free). We do not know for sure what the natural failure to implant rate is and many of the figures are based on fertility clinics where failure to implant occurs 60% of the time
     
  20. TheHat

    TheHat New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    20,929
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Huh?

    Your serious?

    You don't see a difference b/w allowing nature to take its course and someone methodically trying to kill their baby? Your arguments don't make any sense.

    Doesn't matter if someone is taking something that by happen chance causes an abortion unknowingly, not to mention unwillingly. I am pretty sure the woman wasn't taking it to cause an abortion. That is totally different then someone who intentionally aborts their baby for the sole purpose of aborting their baby. If you can't see the difference there then this is a hopeless conversation.

    And providing stats on implantation is irrelevant, unless your trying to use it to justify aborting your baby. Which is just twisted by itself. It doesn't matter if 90% don't implant, your taking an outside substance to make sure the baby doesn't implant. So what is the point of the stat numbers you keep giving?......lol.
     

Share This Page