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

What are you talking about??? I am not going to play the "What if" game with you. Let's stay grounded in reality please.

Eating papaya every once in awhile isn't going to kill anybody.

Another bad reason by you, to OK abortions.

 

Once again, I point you back to your own OP, where you said you didn't want to get into this.....lol.

 

Look it up Pawpaw is an abortifacient

And this is "reality"

 

No, I didn't but it is hard to ignore when others keep misnaming things. Still insisting it is a "baby"?

 

It actually is a baby, just as I have shown with Merck manual reference.

 

Wow killers will go to any lengths to find out the most diabolical ways to kill.

 

There are lots of other natural abortifacients too. The carica papaya, or paw paw fruit, is included on this list too. http://www.motherherbs.com/abortifacient.html

Not sure how easy it is to get your hands on these herbs/fruits though or how safe they are though since a lot of them can be poisonous if not used correctly.

But that's definitely how women used to control their fertility thousands of years ago.

 

Thanks Pasithea I am aware that there are a lot of possible abortifacients - Pawpaw is just surprising because it is so common

This is not a bad link - but one of the "natural" methods they talk about is vitamin C - but the DOSES!!! Wheee oooH! At those doses you would end with a significant metabolic acidosis - which is probably one of the main mechanisms of action
http://www.sisterzeus.com/Abortif.htm

 

So is it your opinion that a woman who is on BC for medical reasons shouldn't have sex because she MIGHT fertilise an egg that MIGHT not implant?

 

Jesus. I am done with this. You people can't comprehend the topic at hand and stay focused on it without running off on nonsense.

When you people are capable of staying 100% focused on an OP PM me and I will be happy to discuss. I am done with you guys moving goalposts when you have nothing else to go on. It's an exercise in futility.

Go back to the OP people. You guys have wondered so far off path you can't even determine what the point of the thread was.

 

Like I said above, what does papaya have to do with this? If you eat a truck load of anything it can do damage. You make no sense. So if a woman eats a truckload of unripe papaya she might have an abortion.

I fail to see how this fits in with your OP?????

PM me when you guys can discuss things without running all over the place.

 

No, Mak was pretty much right on the button

 

So if she takes one of the many "herbal" abortifacients she is fine but if she takes RU486 she is a slut

Do I have that right?

 

A killer? Yes, a slut? Maybe.

 

Thanks. My question was entirely related to Hat's own comments, and not surprisingly, I am left waiting for an answer.

Pretty muc. We should ban every single thing that could cause a miscarriage.

 

More inane nonsense from you two, you do realize that all homicide laws, that deem a homicide a murder, hinge on intent right? So WHY did she take the abortifacient? That is the key question. An accidental poisoning is not a murder now is it?

 

How do you prove intent?

 

I am asking Hat that if a woman is on BC for medical reasons, should she refrain from having sex because the BC will 'kill' the 'baby'.

Easy question, one would assume with an easy answer. Obviously not.

 

How do you prove intent in any murder case?

 

You have to prove intent to establish first degree murder.

You need to prove two things in a murder case:

Actus rea - that the person committed the crime or acted in the commission of the crime

Mens rea - that the person intended it.

This is why insanity gets used as a defense.

 

OK, so how do you prove those things in a murder case. You dodged the actual question.

 

They prove intent all the time, every time there is a first degree murder conviction.

Intent can be proved many ways .. Bill has a conversation with Jill and tells her that he wants Fred dead. Jill testifies that Bill said this .. intent established.

 

Well Bowerbird, I guess this is your answer!

 

What the laws say are irrelevent to the question of what "should" be considered an abortion.

The laws in different states conflict by claiming that prior to 21 weeks for example is not a person but in fetal homicide laws say it is a person.

There is no standard definition of personhood in law .. and it matters not if there was to the debate of what "should" be.

 

in a murder case you have a principle called "corpus delicti" which means you have to prove that a crime has been committed FIRST - especially in the case of the use of contraceptives to prevent implantation - how are you going to prove that a crime has been committed?