@divegeester saidKJ never answers questions directly.
I asked KellyJay this in a thread just now but he hates me with his baby-hate and won’t reply, so I’ll ask it here.
Republicans, especially Christian republicans are appalled by abortion because they believe the zygote and embryo are a human being from conception.
So is the morning after pill still abortion even if the woman doesn’t know if she has conceived or not?
@moonbus saidGiven that couples can work out the optimal time to get pregnant, does working out the least likely time to become pregnant also constitute a form of hindrance? Should people simply roll the dice every time they have sex. Is this the only morally accepted form of sexual intercourse?
Whether a woman knows she’s pregnant or not is irrelevant to the abortion debate, at least as far as Roman Catholicism is concerned. The strict doctrine is that anything which hinders pregnancy is prima facie forbidden, and given that contraceptives hinder conception, it follows that the morning after pill is morally equivalent to abortion ( for Catholics, and probably also for many Evangelicals).
Do right to lifers champion the premise that the creation of life is the distinct possibility of every sexual act, therefore any attempt to mitigate conception is immoral?
46d
@divegeester saidStay the course here. When people take a pill, or use a rubber, or abstain, they are deciding if they want to risk pregnancy or not. I loaded up on Tesla last week, risking dollars.
I asked KellyJay this in a thread just now but he hates me with his baby-hate and won’t reply, so I’ll ask it here.
Republicans, especially Christian republicans are appalled by abortion because they believe the zygote and embryo are a human being from conception.
So is the morning after pill still abortion even if the woman doesn’t know if she has conceived or not?
If the girl gets pregnant, she took the risk. She owns the pregnancy. She has a baby inside.
So abortion discussions would begin there, would they not.? Not on how she 'got' that way,..........that is irrelevant. And the rest of society has nothing to do with her risk, or with her pregnancy. Whew.
So, all on the same page, please. It all boils down to erase and scrape the child from her womb.
Vote. Why be so daft. It is what it is.
46d
@no1marauder saidCorrect. There is no pregnancy with a morning after pill, so there is no abortion. Look up the word 'abortion' and calm yourselves. I am all for your taking the pills for recreation, but if something goes wrong, society has nothing to do with it.
Morning after pills prevent fertilization, so no:
"The morning-after pill's role is to prevent pregnancy from occurring to keep that sneaky sperm from meeting an egg to fertilize. Simply put—no fertilization, no pregnancy."
https://cadenceotc.com/blogs/learn-share/understanding-the-morning-after-pill-10-things-you-should-know
46d
@kmax87 saidJust a note, the abortion thing is old hat.....but note how libs find it so easy to use the word 'banned', when they harp on our being the dictators.
If you take the Catholic position as pilloried by the Python Crew, then every sperm is sacred and any attempt to interfere or present a barrier between sperm saying hello to egg is abhorrent.
By that logic, vasectomies should also be banned along with the pill, the condom, the morning after pill and abortion.
@AverageJoe1 saidIf the girl gets pregnant, she took the risk. She owns the pregnancy. She has a baby inside.
Stay the course here. When people take a pill, or use a rubber, or abstain, they are deciding if they want to risk pregnancy or not. I loaded up on Tesla last week, risking dollars.
If the girl gets pregnant, she took the risk. She owns the pregnancy. She has a baby inside.
So abortion discussions would begin there, would they not.? Not on how she 'got' that ...[text shortened]... boils down to erase and scrape the child from her womb.
Vote. Why be so daft. It is what it is.
So abortion discussions would begin there, would they not.? Not on how she 'got' that way,..........that is irrelevant.
So what about rape victims numb-skull? Your "morning after pill" is only 89% effective at best. That means at least 11 out of every 100 rape victims still become pregnant even after taking a "morning after pill" numb-skull.
You're statements like this are dumber than a box of rocks.
46d
@KingDavid403 saidI hve stated 50 times on the forum that victims of rape or incest should be required by law to have abortions. I would perform them myself.
If the girl gets pregnant, she took the risk. She owns the pregnancy. She has a baby inside.
So abortion discussions would begin there, would they not.? Not on how she 'got' that way,..........that is irrelevant.
So what about rape victims numb-skull? Your "morning after pill" is only 89% effective at best. That means at least 11 out of every 100 ra ...[text shortened]... king a "morning after pill" numb-skull.
You're statements like this are dumber than a box of rocks.
I think my sense is too common for y'all. We are all quite different. I say to kill any person who kills another person. Common sense. Shav says do not do that.
46d
@AverageJoe1 saidI hve stated 50 times on the forum that victims of rape or incest should be required by law to have abortions.
I hve stated 50 times on the forum that victims of rape or incest should be required by law to have abortions. I would perform them myself.
I think my sense is too common for y'all. We are all quite different. I say to kill any person who kills another person. Common sense. Shav says do not do that.
omg... Should be required by law? You can add this statement to your box of rocks.
How about it's the woman's choice of what SHE wants to do? It's her life, her body, her choice. It's simple really. Here's a thought; mind your own damn business in personal matters.
46d
@divegeester saidNo. No the morning after pill is not the same as abortion.
I asked KellyJay this in a thread just now but he hates me with his baby-hate and won’t reply, so I’ll ask it here.
Republicans, especially Christian republicans are appalled by abortion because they believe the zygote and embryo are a human being from conception.
So is the morning after pill still abortion even if the woman doesn’t know if she has conceived or not?
I take it this is some republican / extremist Christian thing?
Is a condom the same as abortion? Or masturbation?
Please….
46d
@shavixmir saidYup, if you prevent life from happening, by having protected sex, you are responsible, you are weighing up whether it's right for you to have children at that time.
No. No the morning after pill is not the same as abortion.
I take it this is some republican / extremist Christian thing?
Is a condom the same as abortion? Or masturbation?
Please….
However if you prevent life from happening after the fact, because having a child is still not part of your plan at that point, you are a murderous monster. Even if it's the morning after pill which prevents fertilization from taking place.
And people argue there's a difference and abortion should not be a method of birth control. But what is contraception if not a method of preventing unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is a fail safe method to prevent unwanted pregnancy. That a pregnancy may be unwanted does not correlate to a lack of care and consideration two people in a committed relationship may have for each other either. People are being very responsible to say that they are not ready for parenthood at that time.
How many marital blunders did society impose on couples in the past because the women was pregnant. Shame and stigmatization forced people to marry regardless of the preparedness for that union. And we had a couple of generations growing up in toxic homes because of this social stigma. Was that a good thing?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 120958
46d
@shavixmir saidIt’s just a question, I’m not judging.
No. No the morning after pill is not the same as abortion.
I take it this is some republican / extremist Christian thing?
Is a condom the same as abortion? Or masturbation?
Please….
45d
@KingDavid403 saidOK. For once I defer to King. Of course I misstated that big time. But don't go so fast about your saying that it is her decision......and that we need to think about her....I am afraid I am siding with all the babies being thrown in a trash can. Or, could you tell us what they do with them?
I hve stated 50 times on the forum that victims of rape or incest should be required by law to have abortions.
omg... Should be required by law? You can add this statement to your box of rocks.
How about it's the woman's choice of what SHE wants to do? It's her life, her body, her choice. It's simple really. Here's a thought; mind your own damn business in personal matters.
Let them keep their babies no matter rape nor incest. Problem is, as small as it may be, the child grows up, and a future suitor will be in for one hell of a surprise. And then, THEY have children. aaarrrggghhhh
45d
@AverageJoe1 saidAn egg with a sperm-cell in it, is not a person, baby, or human being. It's an egg with a sperm-cell in it. It is what it is; nothing more.
OK. For once I defer to King. Of course I misstated that big time. But don't go so fast about your saying that it is her decision......and that we need to think about her....I am afraid I am siding with all the babies being thrown in a trash can. Or, could you tell us what they do with them?
Let them keep their babies no matter rape nor incest. Problem is, as smal ...[text shortened]... future suitor will be in for one hell of a surprise. And then, THEY have children. aaarrrggghhhh
By your logic, every egg in a woman's body is a person just waiting for some fertilizer. That would mean no more menstrual cycle's for woman; which would put all tampon companies out of business which could crash your stock market shares little joe. think...
45d
@A-Unique-Nickname saidBut they would not be free. I and my priest must pay for them.
Free abortions for everyone. The world is already overpopulated. No more kids for 5 years, minimum.