According to medical science, pregnancy does not begin until implantation. Thus, Plan B does not cause abortions, because it acts by preventing implantation from ever happening. It actually does the same thing that some pre-coital contraceptives do, including the copper IUD and even some hormonal methods. It is not an "abortion," because there is no pregnancy.
I understand that some people claim otherwise, but we all know that the sort of people who call it the "unborn" would claim the uterus is a black hole to outer space if they thought hit helped their argument. That doesn't make it true.
Reuters Health) - Though most doctors will give you a definition of when pregnancy begins, it's not always the same one, according to a new survey.
Most of the polled obstetrician-gynecologists believe pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg. But a minority say it doesn't begin until a week later when the fertilized egg implants in the uterus -- the definition given by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG).
Just to point out.. that's not settled. Most physicians think pregnancy starts with fertilization.(
I am curious. Contraception was used, but contraception failure occurred.
Do you see the morning after pill as acceptable?
While I am decidedly pro-life (and Catholic) I don't have a personal problem with birth control pills or a "morning after" pill. I tend to be a realist when it comes to this stuff and know that stuff happens. If IMMEDIATE corrective action is taken a "morning after" pill is little different than a birth control pill. My issue comes in when the decision not to have the baby comes months down the road.
MOSTLY AGREED. It is just that you deliberately LIE about calling unborn humans "innocent", AND you ignorantly fail to understand they are not "beings", any more than mice or mosquitoes are "beings". They are mere-animal entities only, of no more Objective worth than mice or mosquitoes. Unborn humans are human entities, not persons, just like hydatidiform moles and cuticle cells are human entities, not persons.It's not the same thing as their condemnation of killing innocent human beings. The latter is not-faith specific and should be universal.
NOPE. Either of the last two definitions fits what I originally said. The only difference is that the reason for "ending" is up-for-grabs (spontaneous vs deliberate), because not specified in the dictionary.
That doesn't necessarily mean that dictionary is better than others, in terms of Objective data, instead of Subjective human prejudice. Imagine a dictionary released in the year 1000AD, when most folks thought the Earth was flat. The dictionary would record such "information"! --and other folks would declare the dictionary to be "official" or even "authoritative", while it remained entirely wrong about various things.Most people won't subscribe to the online version or purchase the book version of Stedman's Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing. That's where the nitty gritty definitions are. Spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, miscarriage, and much more are described, but more than just in ordinary dictionary form.
That doesn't necessarily mean that dictionary is better than others, in terms of Objective data, instead of Subjective human prejudice. Imagine a dictionary released in the year 1000AD, when most folks thought the Earth was flat. The dictionary would record such "information"! --and other folks would declare the dictionary to be "official" or even "authoritative", while it remained entirely wrong about various things.
In an earlier message SmokeAndMirrors stated that "words mean things", which is entirely true, but the things that words mean are not always "true" in the sense of "rational". In this Thread there was some debate about the meaning of the word "abortion", and the fact is, it has more than one meaning, none of which qualify as "irrational". It is perfectly OK for different folks to use those different meanings, but it is also important to try to be clear about which meaning one is using, in order to prevent erroneous assumptions about that.
For an example of an irrational meaning, we simply look at the word "baby", which many folks use to reference an unborn human. The problem here is the same/generic ignorance that existed in the year 1000AD. At that time no one knew that much of the placenta is physically part of the overall unborn human. (That was discovered when DNA analysis became common in the 1980s and 1990s.) In the old days they thought only the fetus mattered, and so dictionary definitions of "baby" routinely include "fetus", even though they are not-at-all the same thing --provable because if you remove the fetus from the womb it usually dies; it needs its placenta! while an actual baby doesn't.
As an analogy, consider a modern plastic model-kit for, say, a racing boat. The "before" and "after" objects are very different things, even though you might call them by the same name! It is most rational to use different names/descriptions to avoid causing confusion! And that, in a nutshell, is why unborn humans should never be called "babies", in spite of what the dictionary records millions of ignorant folk saying.
ALL DICTIONARIES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY BASED ON LANGUAGE-USAGE. Which is why I provided that link about that fact, in the other post. Dictionary editors most certainly do not declare anything like, "This and this only is how the English language shall be used!" --and that's why even a highly respected medical dictionary can be Objectively irrational here or there. (Did I actually **say** Steadman's was wrong in the particular way I described?) And therefore you should pay attention to a certain Logical Fallacy.STEDMAN MEDICAL DICTIONARY is MORE CORRECT THAT YOU ARE probably upteen times more often!
ALL DICTIONARIES ARE FUNDAMENTALLY BASED ON LANGUAGE-USAGE. Which is why I provided that link about that fact, in the other post. Dictionary editors most certainly do not declare anything like, "This and this only is how the English language shall be used!" --and that's why even a highly respected medical dictionary can be Objectively irrational here or there. And therefore you should pay attention to a certain Logical Fallacy.
A WORTHWHILE EXERCISE. Would you like some clues? First, there is Quantum Mechanics, and the fact that since Utter Randomness exists, it is quite possible for things to happen for no reason at all (such as the Universe existing, or even God existing). Second is that that also allows Free Will to exist, which then has the problem of deciding what to do about existing for no reason at all. Third is Mathematics, and specifically a combination of Gödel's Proof with Cantor's analysis of "transfinity" --it means that it is absolutely impossible for everything to be knowable, even by God, and thus existence need not ever be boring --there's a transfinity of things to learn out there! And fourth, between Infinity and Eternity, anything that can possibly happen once can also, eventually, happen again. Suicide is not a permanent escape from Existence.Gosh, I knew it. I'll have to go outside now and ponder my own existence. :roll:
A WORTHWHILE EXERCISE. Would you like some clues? First, there is Quantum Mechanics, and the fact that since Utter Randomness exists, it is quite possible for things to happen for no reason at all (such as the Universe existing, or even God existing). Second is that that also allows Free Will to exist, which then has the problem of deciding what to do about existing for no reason at all. Third is Mathematics, and specifically a combination of Gödel's Proof with Cantor's analysis of "transfinity" --it means that it is absolutely impossible for everything to be knowable, even by God, and thus existence need not ever be boring --there's a transfinity of things to learn out there! And fourth, between Infinity and Eternity, anything that can possibly happen once can also, eventually, happen again. Suicide is not a permanent escape from Existence.
YOU ARE WELCOME. Have a nice day!You are a hoot, really. Alrighty then. Back to thinking and pondering for myself - despite it being objectionable to you.
YOU ARE WELCOME. Have a nice day!
Yes, it is. "Believing" something is not the same thing as established medical facts. There are biologists who "believe" in creationism. That doesn't make it valid. Doctors can believe silly things too.
So, since apparently both sides are spouting an opinion, what are the actual numbers of believers of each opinion?You are not understanding that what you are stating is not a "established medical fact".. like.. "the heart pumps blood". Its an opinion / belief that pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. that's an opinion. And its not settled as most obstetricians-gynecologists believe pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.
So, since apparently both sides are spouting an opinion, what are the actual numbers of believers of each opinion?
On another note, here is a description of pregnancy, and the **fact** is, that description does not mesh with the belief that pregnancy begins with conception. That is, pregnancy is something the woman experiences, not the offspring (which causes that experience). While certainly the life of the offspring begins at conception, there is a week-or-so delay before the woman is affected (starting with womb-implantation).
THANK YOU.I provided the numbers already.. but off the top of my head I think 80% think that pregnancy begins at fertilization.
FALSE. Many women can detect the ovulation event, and some might be able to detect the implantation event, but none can detect the fertilization event. Most often the first real indication of pregnancy is morning sickness or a pregnancy test-kit, either of which is definitely a non-arbitrary thing that can never be valid before womb-implantation. Besides either of those that there is the HINT of pregnancy which is called a "late period", but so many women are not so perfectly regular that a late period is a reliable sign. Note that with **only** that data available, a woman tends to say, "I might be pregnant". She never says she IS pregnant until she has other data. Therefore she is referencing pregnancy in terms of womb-implantation, not ovum-fertilization.as far as whether the woman is "affected" and to what extent that entails regarding the definition of pregnancy.. its all arbitrary.
It takes a lot more than initial brain activity for an entity to qualify as more than an ordinary animal. Look up "persistent vegetative state", which in some ways is similar to brain death --there is ZERO chance of recovery-- but happens to include a great deal of brain activity.I'm on the fence about whether or not abortion or abortive pills in the earliest stages, prior to the onset of brain activity should be outright illegal, as it obviously should after the first sign of brain activity without exception, bar that of as a last resort at saving the mother's life.
Then to be on the safe side, I suppose we should ban it from the moment of conception for any and every reason except perhaps to save a life, since using the DNA as the starting point would be a great metric. Though I feel that brain activity would also be a good cut-off point, as I'd say there's a difference in intent in having an abortion the day after conception, and having an abortion the day before delivery.It takes a lot more than initial brain activity for an entity to qualify as more than an ordinary animal. Look up "persistent vegetative state", which in some ways is similar to brain death --there is ZERO chance of recovery-- but happens to include a great deal of brain activity.
ALSO, you might be suffering from the delusion that if not interrupted by something like defective DNA or worse, human brain development "inevitably" leads to a normal person-class mind. WRONG!!! The Natural Biological Default for human brain development only results in something known as "a feral child", basically a clever animal, like a chimpanzee or gorilla. It takes **more** than zero interruptions for a human --or even an orangutan or gorilla-- to develop a person-class mind. It takes Active External Help.
Then to be on the safe side, I suppose we should ban it from the moment of conception for any and every reason except perhaps to save a life, since using the DNA as the starting point would be a great metric. Though I feel that brain activity would also be a good cut-off point, as I'd say there's a difference in intent in having an abortion the day after conception, and having an abortion the day before delivery.
You are not understanding that what you are stating is not a "established medical fact".. like.. "the heart pumps blood".
Its an opinion / belief that pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. that's an opinion. And its not settled as most obstetricians-gynecologists believe pregnancy begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.
Well, your opinion is scientifically worthless. Science has already decided the answer to this question, and it doesn't matter whether it suits your beliefs or not.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?