[Abortion Thread] A Tough Pill To Swallow

[Khardsland]

I would have understood those beliefs if they weren't the same folks pushing against contraception, gun control and mask mandates. Almost like, to them, kids only matter when they are not born yet. Hey, that's a song!

Right. I have noticed the hypocrisy as well.

Here, we have a meme which goes like this : 'Hypocrisy ki bhi seema hoti hai'. It means 'There is a limit to hypocrisy'.

[Loeje]

Even if you can't conceive of people with more radical positions than yours, they do exist. Some politicians are already convinced that the birth control pill is actually abortion and want to ban it that way. I do think that decent education would address that problem, though.

That's more likely a disagreement on what constitutes "abortion" than a lack of education.

That's a disagreement that stems from lack of education. We already know what abortion is and what contraception is, but some people don't learn these things because sex education or science education isn't very good. The solution is education.

[Grand Meridian]

Somewhere between 15 and 20 weeks. Beyond that point, well it's on you if you decided to keep the baby. You had 4-5 months to change your mind.

As for the fetus vs. baby argument, I've heard exactly ZERO women refer to their unborn children as "the fetus".

[American Legionaries]

That's more likely a disagreement on what constitutes "abortion" than a lack of education.

That's a disagreement that stems from lack of education. We already know what abortion is and what contraception is, but some people don't learn these things because sex education or science education isn't very good. The solution is education.

Who's "we", and why is a hormonal treatment which inhibits implantation of a blastocyst, rather than inhibiting ovulation, as a mechanism of action contraceptive and not abortifacient?

[Elwher]

Judges have no business making up rights. If something is not mentioned in the Constitution it is not a Constitutional right. It waa right to overturn the Roe decision.

Just because the word "you can do abortion" is not said explicitly doesn't mean it isn't a Constitutional right. No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, after all, so sayeth Amendment 14th.

Finish it up, however. Without due process of law, passing a law can be considered due process.

[Elwher]

Judges have no business making up rights. If something is not mentioned in the Constitution it is not a Constitutional right. It waa right to overturn the Roe decision.

So the 9th Amendment doesn't exist?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You have a number of rights not specifically spelled out in the constitution, saying only right specifically spelled out in the constitution exist would be terrible law and would go directly against the written words of the constitution.

But by the 10th, the protection of those rights not delegated to the Federal government is reverted to the states.

[Thermodolia]

A condom does not address the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, not unless you're buying it from the vending machine inside a TARDIS.

---

I bet that's not true.

Actually, Islam and Judaism are both AOK with abortion.

Not really no. Judaism is only ok with abortion if it’s to save the life of the mother, and that it should only be a decision between a married couple.

Outside of that judaism does not allow abortion

[The Pacific Northwest]

That's a disagreement that stems from lack of education. We already know what abortion is and what contraception is, but some people don't learn these things because sex education or science education isn't very good. The solution is education.

Who's "we", and why is a hormonal treatment which inhibits implantation of a blastocyst, rather than inhibiting ovulation, as a mechanism of action contraceptive and not abortifacient?

Because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn’t happen until after implantation, therefore preventing implantation is preventing pregnancy and not abortion because there’s no pregnancy to abort.

Something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all blastocysts never implant to begin with without contraceptive influence anyway, those aren’t all miscarriages.

[American Legionaries]

Who's "we", and why is a hormonal treatment which inhibits implantation of a blastocyst, rather than inhibiting ovulation, as a mechanism of action contraceptive and not abortifacient?

Because abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Pregnancy doesn’t happen until after implantation, therefore preventing implantation is preventing pregnancy and not abortion because there’s no pregnancy to abort.

Life begins at conception, upon formation of the zygote a pregnancy has begun. By interfering with the necessary process of implantation, a hormonal treatment administered after ovulation, which works by the mechanism of inhibiting implantation functions as an abortifacient.

Something like 1/3 to 1/2 of all blastocysts never implant to begin with without contraceptive influence anyway, those aren’t all miscarriages.

They are.

[Northern Avers of Maine]

The so called ‘baby’ that’s forming in the mothers womb is not a human! And it should’nt be treated like one. Something that lacks the most basic of organs is not living, something that literaly, no biologically is dependant on another organism is not its own organism. And worst of all, this barely existent piece of blood and flesh should’nt get to ruin a fully alive and well woman’s life.

[Khardsland]

Somewhere between 15 and 20 weeks. Beyond that point, well it's on you if you decided to keep the baby. You had 4-5 months to change your mind.

As for the fetus vs. baby argument, I've heard exactly ZERO women refer to their unborn children as "the fetus".

People's financial situation can change anytime. Also, fetus IS the scientific name. If you have problem with that, stop believing in the periodic table, vaccines, skyscrapers and the many other wonders of science.

[The Black Forrest]

Somewhere between 15 and 20 weeks. Beyond that point, well it's on you if you decided to keep the baby. You had 4-5 months to change your mind.

As for the fetus vs. baby argument, I've heard exactly ZERO women refer to their unborn children as "the fetus".

People's financial situation can change anytime. Also, fetus IS the scientific name. If you have problem with that, stop believing in the periodic table, vaccines, skyscrapers and the many other wonders of science.

I am not sure where finances came into this. Yes they can change. Still the very act of having a child is a financial loss.

I don’t think GM was discussing the relevance of the word Fetus in terms of science. I think it was more of the anti-abortion people calling it a baby. It’s a psych argument after all; it’s meant to instill imagery of the thing wearing diapers and making cooing noises.

[Loeje]

That's a disagreement that stems from lack of education. We already know what abortion is and what contraception is, but some people don't learn these things because sex education or science education isn't very good. The solution is education.

Who's "we", and why is a hormonal treatment which inhibits implantation of a blastocyst, rather than inhibiting ovulation, as a mechanism of action contraceptive and not abortifacient?

Because it prevents pregnancy, and you need to be pregnant first before you can have an abortion? This seems fairly obvious.

[American Legionaries]

Who's "we", and why is a hormonal treatment which inhibits implantation of a blastocyst, rather than inhibiting ovulation, as a mechanism of action contraceptive and not abortifacient?

Because it prevents pregnancy, and you need to be pregnant first before you can have an abortion? This seems fairly obvious.

It doesn't prevent pregnancy though, that's the point.

[Godular]

Because it prevents pregnancy, and you need to be pregnant first before you can have an abortion? This seems fairly obvious.

It doesn't prevent pregnancy though, that's the point.

It does prevent pregnancy though. That's the whole point of inhibiting implantation. You might say life begins at conception, but pregnancy most definitely does not.

Also, failure to implant is not a miscarriage. Miscarriage is specifically when the body rejects the connection between the uterus and the fetus, but a connection has to be established first.

[Loeje]

Because it prevents pregnancy, and you need to be pregnant first before you can have an abortion? This seems fairly obvious.

It doesn't prevent pregnancy though, that's the point.

Sure, sometimes it fails, but for the most part it does prevent pregnancy.

[American Legionaries]

It doesn't prevent pregnancy though, that's the point.

Sure, sometimes it fails, but for the most part it does prevent pregnancy.

And sometimes it aborts a conceived child. Hence the issue people have with it.

[Loeje]

Sure, sometimes it fails, but for the most part it does prevent pregnancy.

And sometimes it aborts a conceived child. Hence the issue people have with it.

Actually, what I was told is that if you do get pregnant on the pill you should stop taking it, but it shouldn't harm the fetus. I've never heard of it actually aborting a fetus.

[American Legionaries]

And sometimes it aborts a conceived child. Hence the issue people have with it.

Actually, what I was told is that if you do get pregnant on the pill you should stop taking it, but it shouldn't harm the fetus. I've never heard of it actually aborting a fetus.

Generally speaking hormonal contraceptives work by dual action of inhibiting ovulation, and inhibiting sperm from travelling into the fallopian tubes. Occasionally they do fail, and the woman ovulated despite taking the medicine, and the sperm manage to get through. But this is extremely rare when taken properly.

What's generally problematic for most people is the use of hormonal birth control in the fashion of 'morning after pills' or as a post intercourse treatment. In this instance the medicine is given in an attempt to inhibiting ovulation, if the woman hasn't yet ovulated. However, if the woman has ovulated, and the egg is already making it's way through the fallopian tube, it may be fertilized, but be stopped from implantation by the actions of the drug.

So, while neither use is intended to serve as an abortifacient, both methods of administration can do so in some circumstances. The use of post intercourse hormonal treatments being much more likely to cause the expulsion of a blastocyst.

[Katganistan]

Actually, Islam and Judaism are both AOK with abortion.

Not really no. Judaism is only ok with abortion if it’s to save the life of the mother, and that it should only be a decision between a married couple.

Outside of that judaism does not allow abortion

Are you referring to Orthodox Judaism? I'm pretty sure Reform Judaism, and even some Conservative Jews, are okay with abortion. I'm not Jewish, though, so cannot claim to speak for them.
https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/site ... ortion.pdf
https://www.ncjw.org/news/the-jewish-ca ... on-rights/
https://rac.org/blog/abortion-and-repro ... erspective

[Spirit of Hope]

So the 9th Amendment doesn't exist?

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

You have a number of rights not specifically spelled out in the constitution, saying only right specifically spelled out in the constitution exist would be terrible law and would go directly against the written words of the constitution.

But by the 10th, the protection of those rights not delegated to the Federal government is reverted to the states.

That is not how the 10th Amendment works, or rights in general. It also completely ignores the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice it doesn't say anything about rights, their protection or their violation. It is all about powers, like the power to tax pass laws, or imprison people. Nor does the bill of rights actually give the federal government the "power" to protect rights, the bill of rights is instead a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government. At the time the constitution was written states could violate the bill of rights as much as they wanted and the federal government wouldn't do anything, because the federal government didn't have the "power" to protect rights. After the civil war the 14th Amendment was passed and it says that states can not violate the rights of US citizens. Again this doesn't give the federal government the "power" to protect rights but instead says states don't have the "power" to violate those rights.

Actually, what I was told is that if you do get pregnant on the pill you should stop taking it, but it shouldn't harm the fetus. I've never heard of it actually aborting a fetus.

Generally speaking hormonal contraceptives work by dual action of inhibiting ovulation, and inhibiting sperm from travelling into the fallopian tubes. Occasionally they do fail, and the woman ovulated despite taking the medicine, and the sperm manage to get through. But this is extremely rare when taken properly.

What's generally problematic for most people is the use of hormonal birth control in the fashion of 'morning after pills' or as a post intercourse treatment. In this instance the medicine is given in an attempt to inhibiting ovulation, if the woman hasn't yet ovulated. However, if the woman has ovulated, and the egg is already making it's way through the fallopian tube, it may be fertilized, but be stopped from implantation by the actions of the drug.

So, while neither use is intended to serve as an abortifacient, both methods of administration can do so in some circumstances. The use of post intercourse hormonal treatments being much more likely to cause the expulsion of a blastocyst.

Which doesn't meet the medical definition of an abortion. Though it does meet the extreme "life starts at conception" definition of abortion.

[American Legionaries]

But by the 10th, the protection of those rights not delegated to the Federal government is reverted to the states.

That is not how the 10th Amendment works, or rights in general. It also completely ignores the 14th Amendment.

The 10th Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Notice it doesn't say anything about rights, their protection or their violation. It is all about powers, like the power to tax pass laws, or imprison people. Nor does the bill of rights actually give the federal government the "power" to protect rights, the bill of rights is instead a list of restrictions on the power of the federal government. At the time the constitution was written states could violate the bill of rights as much as they wanted and the federal government wouldn't do anything, because the federal government didn't have the "power" to protect rights. After the civil war the 14th Amendment was passed and it says that states can not violate the rights of US citizens. Again this doesn't give the federal government the "power" to protect rights but instead says states don't have the "power" to violate those rights.

Generally speaking hormonal contraceptives work by dual action of inhibiting ovulation, and inhibiting sperm from travelling into the fallopian tubes. Occasionally they do fail, and the woman ovulated despite taking the medicine, and the sperm manage to get through. But this is extremely rare when taken properly.

What's generally problematic for most people is the use of hormonal birth control in the fashion of 'morning after pills' or as a post intercourse treatment. In this instance the medicine is given in an attempt to inhibiting ovulation, if the woman hasn't yet ovulated. However, if the woman has ovulated, and the egg is already making it's way through the fallopian tube, it may be fertilized, but be stopped from implantation by the actions of the drug.

So, while neither use is intended to serve as an abortifacient, both methods of administration can do so in some circumstances. The use of post intercourse hormonal treatments being much more likely to cause the expulsion of a blastocyst.

Which doesn't meet the medical definition of an abortion. Though it does meet the extreme "life starts at conception" definition of abortion.

Which brings us full circle back to

That's more likely a disagreement on what constitutes "abortion" than a lack of education.

[Thermodolia]

Not really no. Judaism is only ok with abortion if it’s to save the life of the mother, and that it should only be a decision between a married couple.

Outside of that judaism does not allow abortion

Are you referring to Orthodox Judaism? I'm pretty sure Reform Judaism, and even some Conservative Jews, are okay with abortion. I'm not Jewish, though, so cannot claim to speak for them.

Reform Jews themselves may be ok with abortion but Reform Judaism overall is only ok with abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, if the mother is underaged, or rape/incest. Outside of that no

[Neutraligon]

Are you referring to Orthodox Judaism? I'm pretty sure Reform Judaism, and even some Conservative Jews, are okay with abortion. I'm not Jewish, though, so cannot claim to speak for them.

Reform Jews themselves may be ok with abortion but Reform Judaism overall is only ok with abortion if the life of the mother is threatened, if the mother is underaged, or rape/incest. Outside of that no

So...the issue is far more complex then that. Until 40 days, so about 6 weeks, the fetus is not considered well, anything really. That said, that 6 weeks is when a woman normally learns she is pregnent, so the question becomes is that 40 days of actual pregnancy, 40 days from the last period? 40 days from knowing about the pregnancy? More than that, it is questionable whether a fetus is considered a person in Judaism, considering the difference between how a pregnant woman is treated if just the pregnancy is ended due to a fight, or if the woman herself is injured. More than that, health of the mother covers a lot more ground then people think, including the mental health of the mother. SO if remianing pregnant creates severe emotional harm on a woman, abortion is permissible.

[Fahran]

I would have understood those beliefs if they weren't the same folks pushing against contraception, gun control and mask mandates. Almost like, to them, kids only matter when they are not born yet. Hey, that's a song!

This is a logical non-sequitur. As I mentioned before, a lot of pro-life folks view abortion, rightly or wrongly, as ethically equivalent to murder. There's a substantive difference between wanting murder to be legal and, as an example, wanting people to be able to own firearms, especially given most firearm legislation is security theater.

The best argument in favor of abortion is that fetuses do not possess sapience, responsiveness to external stimuli, social ties to the broader community, and personhood during at least the earliest stages of pregnancy. I'll point as well that the "social ties to the broader community" does in fact encompass a lot of the persons that essentialists might argue would otherwise fall outside the definition. That being said, get your elective abortions in the beginning of the second trimester.