Why "Planned Parenthood" is wrong.

[Parchelon]

Yes of course, but I was just pointing out the massive difference between leaving an unused sperm cell in the uterus and having an embryo develop into a foetus.

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

[Divair]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Near certainty? Bullshit. Do you have any clue how low the chances are?

[The Realm of God]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Have you ever heard of a misscarriage?

I assume you have not.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

[Ifreann]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Not when it contacts and embryo, when it contacts an ovum.

[AiliailiA]

Now we have the unborn humans being killed at a rate of more than 40 million a year world-wide. Source ->

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

And you oppose the simplest, least harmful and cheapest way to reduce that number: contraception.

That will haunt you until you change your mind on contraception. Those two things: opposition to abortion, and opposition to contraception do not work together. That is an inconsistent position, not remedied by "only have sex if you're prepared to have children". Not remedied, because abortion is (to you at least) a matter of public policy. Access to contraception is a matter of public policy.

But who a person has sex with is NOT a matter of public policy. It is not your business, and it is not mine, unless that person is dis-empowered and requires our intervention to protect their rights.

You may say that contraception is not the topic. You'd be wrong, because Planned Parenthood deals in contraception. And you'd be further wrong, because contraception is always relevant to any discussion of abortion: contraception is the simplest, least harmful and cheapest way to reduce the need for abortions.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Not when it contacts and embryo, when it contacts an ovum.

Be fair, at least he's stopped calling embryos and foetuses 'babies'.

[Tekania]

What massive difference? They're both bundles of DNA, inside a uterus, with the potential to develop into a new human life.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

If by "near certainty" you mean about a 75% chance of.... then yes.

[The Realm of God]

Not when it contacts and embryo, when it contacts an ovum.

Be fair, at least he's stopped calling embryos and foetuses 'babies'.

At least, it's a start.

[Natair]

Be fair, at least he's stopped calling embryos and foetuses 'babies'.

At least, it's a start.

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

Which side of the pond you live on.

Edit: As in, British people usually write "foetus" and Americans are lazy so they miss a letter and put "fetus". :P

[Tekania]

At least, it's a start.

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

nothing, different spellings of same word.

[The Realm of God]

At least, it's a start.

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

A foetus is the British (READ: proper spelling) a fetus is an Americanisation of foetus.

[Evo Morales]

abortion isn't murder sillies

[Ifreann]

At least, it's a start.

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

One is right, the other's American.

[Parchelon]

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

[Natair]

Dafuq is the difference between a foetus and a fetus?

One is right, the other's American.

We all know the American Way is bassackwards.

[Ifreann]

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

Imagine that, something possible is more likely that something impossible.

[AiliailiA]

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

It's "common sense" ... ie, completely unscientific, ideological wishful thinking.

But you'll probably get provided a "source" anyway, to waste fifteen minutes of your time with the debunking. It must suck for Parchelon to be ganged up on so. I must suck to be so wrong. Being wrong fifteen minutes in the future (a page or two later) is better than being wrong right now.

Yes but an embryo when formed naturally in the womb has a near certainty of developing into a foetus and being born whereas a sperm cell only has the potential of developing into a child when it contacts an embryo and the genetic codes mix.

If by "near certainty" you mean about a 75% chance of.... then yes.

Less than that, if you take it from conception.

Until implantation, the woman has no physical symptoms which can be measured (eg pregnancy test). The blastocyst is "in the womb" before implantation and there is no way of measuring its mortality. Probably a majority of fertilized eggs (then blastocysts) die even before implantation, but that's just a guess.

Where this stupid idea of conception being the start of personhood came from I do not know. Catholic dogma perhaps. It certainly isn't in the Bible. It's not even in the later derivative work of Muhammad. Those writings speak of "quickening" ... well after the stage that modern medicine can detect a pregnancy.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

My God, I've never been exposed to such a revelatory statement of the obvious before.

[The Realm of God]

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

That's impossable.

[Divair]

Source.

Anyway, many people miscarry/have stillbirths. You're demonstrably incorrect.

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

That doesn't mean you get to arbitrarily draw a line and say "HERE! THIS IS IT!"

[Ifreann]

Yes but the chance of an embryo developing into an adult human is exceedingly higher than an unfertilized ovum or a sperm cell that never fertilizes.

That's impossable.

And thus less likely than, well, anything.

[AiliailiA]

One is right, the other's American.

We all know the American Way is bassackwards.

Enough of this. I'm not American, but I use the form fetus because it is shorter, and does not conflict with any other word.

[The Little Harmonic Labyrinth]

Where this stupid idea of conception being the start of personhood came from I do not know. Catholic dogma perhaps. It certainly isn't in the Bible. It's not even in the later derivative work of Muhammad. Those writings speak of "quickening" ... well after the stage that modern medicine can detect a pregnancy.

Yah. I remember talking to a Jewish friend of mine, and she was quite confused as to where the idea of life beginning at conception came from; in Judaism (well, the kind that she has grown up with) life begins when the foetus/baby is more than half born.